#  STRING NAME (do not change!);English;English;English;English;English;English;English;English;;Extra2;X
##;;;;;;;;;;;X
# New World Order 2;;;;;;;;;;;X
##;;;;;;;;;;;X
# Events;;;;;;;;;;;X
##;;;;;;;;;;;X
EVT_8000000_NAME;New World Order;New World Order;New World Order;New World Order;New World Order;New World Order;New World Order;New World Order;;;X
EVT_8000000_DESC;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;Welcome to the New World Order modification. The mod aims to provide more satisfying post-war experience with various historical and semi-historical events, enhanced accuracy of ruling cabinets and other tweaks. The mod is currently in the process of porting NWO1 so stay tuned for more content coming.;;;X
ALLIANCE_WESTERNBLOC_1945;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;;;X
ALLIANCE_EASTERNBLOC_1945;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;;;X
ALLIANCE_WESTERNBLOC_1949;NATO;NATO;NATO;NATO;NATO;NATO;NATO;NATO;;;X
ALLIANCE_EASTERNBLOC_1955;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;Warsaw Pact;;;X
GAME_END_WESTERNBLOC_1945_VICTORY;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;The game ended in a Western Allied victory.;;;X
GAME_END_EASTERNBLOC_1945_VICTORY;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;The game ended in an Eastern Allied victory.;;;X
GAME_END_WESTERNBLOC_1949_VICTORY;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;The game ended in a NATO victory.;;;X
GAME_END_EASTERNBLOC_1955_VICTORY;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;The game ended in a Warsaw Pact victory.;;;X
GAME_END_WESTERNBLOC_1945_TOTAL;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;The game ended in a total victory for Western Allies.;;;X
GAME_END_EASTERNBLOC_1945_TOTAL;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;The game ended in a total victory for Eastern Allied.;;;X
GAME_END_WESTERNBLOC_1949_TOTAL;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;The game ended in a total victory for NATO.;;;X
GAME_END_EASTERNBLOC_1955_TOTAL;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;The game ended in a total victory for Warsaw Pact.;;;X
EVT_CAPITALMOVE_NAME;Capital city;Capital city;Capital city;Capital city;Capital city;Capital city;Capital city;Capital city;;;X
EVT_CAPITALMOVE_DESC;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;Due to recent border changes our newly formed government could not establish itself in a fitting city from the beginning. Now, after the dust of war settled, we are able to move to a place which is proper for a seat of government.;;;X
EVT_ECONDEV_NAME;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;Dynamic economy;;;X
EVT_ECONDEV_DESC;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;As the years went on, the industrial capacity of various provinces around the world changed. Acquisition of new resources, shifts in the profitability of labour and technological advances let new centers to develop and some of the old ones to diminish in importance. Each 5 years there is a chance that every province changes its industrial output, resource production or manpower supply, to simulate historical ups and downs in economic importance of regions throughout the world.;;;X
EVT_PEACETIME_NAME;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;Time of Peace;;;X
EVT_PEACETIME_DESC;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;Time of wars is over or at least we hope so after horrors of the World War II. Even if new conflicts loom in the distance, our society wants to eventually put the weapons aside and once again lead happy normal lives. Therefore even though the economy is prospering with consumption demand on the high, there is no way we can spend as much of industrial production on the military.;;;X
EVT_PEACETIME_A;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;Butter over Guns;;;X
EVT_WARTIME_NAME;Time of War;Time of War;Time of War;Time of War;Time of War;Time of War;Time of War;Time of War;;;X
EVT_WARTIME_DESC;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;It's not long since we waged the last war and the sounds of tanks rolling through the streets can be heard. The beating of war drums is something we wouldn't like to hear for long time but the country needs to send its soldiers to fronts again for the search of glory. That means that our citizens must forego some of their needs, cut on consumption, so that we can divert a lot more of industrial capacity for the purpose of a new war.;;;X
EVT_WARTIME_A;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;Guns over Butter;;;X
EVT_ELECTIONS_NAME;Elections;Elections;Elections;Elections;Elections;Elections;Elections;Elections;;;X
EVT_ELECTIONS_DESC;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;Elections are pivotal events for democratic countries because various political parties clash for the support of the people, sparking discussion about future of our country. One of those turning points occurs today and we have the chance to determine our policies over the course of a few years.;;;X
EVT_ELECTIONS_LEFT;Elect left;Elect left;Elect left;Elect left;Elect left;Elect left;Elect left;Elect left;;;X
EVT_ELECTIONS_RIGHT;Elect right;Elect right;Elect right;Elect right;Elect right;Elect right;Elect right;Elect right;;;X
EVT_ELECTIONS_NOCHANGE;Keep current government;Keep current government;Keep current government;Keep current government;Keep current government;Keep current government;Keep current government;Keep current government;;;X
EVT_GOVTCHANGE_NAME;Change of government;Change of government;Change of government;Change of government;Change of government;Change of government;Change of government;Change of government;;;X
EVT_GOVTCHANGE_DESC;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;With time various forces in the ruling elite rivaled to bring their representatives into the power. Now, such a situation occurs, and we have some of our ministers replaced.;;;X
EVT_BIRTHDAY_NAME;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;Birthday celebrations;;;X
EVT_BIRTHDAY_DESC;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;Today, one of our statesmen is celebrating birthday. It is an opportunity for other heads of states to send congratulations and for all citizens to express their gratitude for so many years in service to the State.;;;X
EVT_HAPPYBIRTHDAY;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;Happy Birthday!;;;X
EVT_DEATH_NAME;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;Time of mourning;;;X
EVT_DEATH_DESC;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;Today, we received grave news that one of our statesmen has died. Many people, ranging from the most fervent supporters to opposing political forces are outpouring their sorrow over the death of such a great politician.;;;X
EVT_DEATH;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;;;X
EVT_GOVGENERAL_NAME;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;New Governor-General;;;X
EVT_GOVGENERAL_DESC;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;A Governor-General is a vice-regal person who in current political arrangement represents our constitutional head of state, the British monarch. United Kingdom has sent a newgovernor is sent to represent the Commonwealth interests and unity in our state.;;;X
EVT_LIMITEDWAR_NAME;Limited War;Limited War;Limited War;Limited War;Limited War;Limited War;Limited War;Limited War;;;X
EVT_LIMITEDWAR_DESC;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;While the 20th century was a time of major political and military alliances, those pacts were often meant to provide insurance against major worldwide conflicts. There were many smaller wars, like struggles against guerilla movements and colonial independence fighters, that were not covered by military alliances and were fought solely by the countries directly involved. Currently, our ally experiences such a war, which we will not take part in.;;;X
EVT_VPCHANGE_NAME;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;Strategic keypoint;;;X
EVT_VPCHANGE_DESC;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;After World War II ended, many provinces that were once key points of interest of their owners were marginalized, while some other gained the utmost importance. The onset of Cold War means that the strategic value of some of our possessions also changes.;;;X
EVT_FORTIFICATIONS_NAME;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;Bulwark against our enemies;;;X
EVT_FORTIFICATIONS_DESC;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;In an ongoing war, we treat some places in our lands as points of special importance, worth defending at every cost. Thanks to their natural defensiveness but also utmost ferocity of our troops, these keypoints will be able to defend themselves longer than one could expect.;;;X
EVT_COMMIESWITCH_NAME;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;Foundation of People's Republic;;;X
EVT_COMMIESWITCH_DESC;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, communist took power in our country, vowing to introduce dictatorship of the masses and give each man according to his needs. Opposition, labeled as reactionists, awaits in terror how the future will unfold. Will we delegalize opposition parties, nationalize the industry and introduce communist dictatorship in our country or will we retain democratic institutions?;;;X
EVT_COMMIESWITCH_SWITCH;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;;;X
EVT_COMMIESWITCH_UNIFY;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;Unite with our comrades!;;;X
EVT_COMMIESWITCH_REJECT;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;Let's remain democracy;;;X
EVT_DEMOSWITCH_NAME;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;Fall of People's Republic;;;X
EVT_DEMOSWITCH_DESC;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;Due to recent sweeping changes in our country's politics, an anticommunist movement took power in our country, vowing to dismantle oppressive communist dictatorship and give each man their natural freedoms, at least so they speak. Communist apparatchiks await, unsure how will the events unfold. Will we introduce multiparty elections, privatize the industry and introduce democratic institutions, at least in name, in our country or will we retain communist dictatorship?;;;X
EVT_DEMOSWITCH_SWITCH;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;Welcome the new order!;;;X
EVT_DEMOSWITCH_UNIFY;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;Unite with our brothers!;;;X
EVT_DEMOSWITCH_REJECT;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;Let's remain dictatorship;;;X
EVT_DEMOUNITE_NAME;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;;;X
EVT_DEMOUNITE_DESC;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by communists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;;;X
EVT_COMMIEUNITE_NAME;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;Reunification;;;X
EVT_COMMIEUNITE_DESC;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;Thanks to the change of government in another part of the country that used to be ruled by reactionists we may now celebrate the reunification of our country. Once divided, we can now be again one state.;;;X
EVT_COLONIALUNREST_NAME;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;Colonial unrest;;;X
EVT_COLONIALUNREST_DESC;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;Colonial riots occurred from time to time because of discrepancies in well-being of colonialists and local population, discrimination because of on nationality and growing nationalism of African and Asian nations. Unrest usually started as peaceful marches and demonstrations but sometimes ended up brutally interrupted by police, leaving demonstrators injured or dead. In 1940s and 1950s colonial empires often promised improvement of living standards and gradual process of entitling subjugated nations to self-governance but for many activists the process was too slow.;;;X
EVT_FREEDIVISIONS_NAME;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;Formation of the Army;;;X
EVT_FREEDIVISIONS_DESC;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;An army, whatever its size, is one of manifestations of independence of a country and its willingness to defend against foreign incursions. After regaining independence most countries were very quick to form their first divisions, usually out of colonial regiments or paramilitary units.;;;X
EVT_FREEDIVISIONS_A;It's an order!;It's an order!;It's an order!;It's an order!;It's an order!;It's an order!;It's an order!;It's an order!;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_ALG_NAME;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;Self-rule of Algeria;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_ANG_NAME;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;Self-rule of Angola;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_BEN_NAME;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;Independence of Dahomey;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_CAM_NAME;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;Self-rule of Cameroon;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_CMB_NAME;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;Self-rule of Cambodia;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_CON_NAME;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;Independence of Congo-Leopoldville;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_CYP_NAME;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;Self-rule of Cyprus;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_EGY_NAME;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;Self-rule of Egypt;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_ETH_NAME;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;Independence of Abissynia;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_GAB_NAME;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;Self-rule of Gabon;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_GLD_NAME;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;Independence of Ghana;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_GUI_NAME;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;Independence of Guinea;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_GUY_NAME;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;Self-rule of Guyana;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_INO_NAME;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_LAO_NAME;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;Self-rule of Laos;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_LBY_NAME;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;Self-rule of Libya;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_LEB_NAME;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;Self-rule of Lebanon;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_MAD_NAME;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;Self-rule of Madagascar;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_MAL_NAME;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;Self-rule of Union of Mali;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_MLY_NAME;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;Independence of Malaya;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_MOR_NAME;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;Self-rule of Morocco;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_MOZ_NAME;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;Self-rule of Mozambique;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_NAM_NAME;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;Self-rule of Namibia;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_NIG_NAME;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_RHO_NAME;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;Self-rule of Rhodesia and Nyasaland;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_SAR_NAME;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;Self-rule of Sarawak;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_SIE_NAME;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;Independence of Sierra Leone;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_SOM_NAME;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;Self-rule of Somalia;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_SUD_NAME;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;Independence of Sudan;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_SYR_NAME;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;Self-rule of Syria;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_TUN_NAME;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;Independence of Tunisia;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_VIE_NAME;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;Self-rule of Vietnam;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U70_NAME;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;Self-rule of Uganda;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U75_NAME;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;Self-rule of Singapore;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U81_NAME;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;Self-rule of Upper Volta;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U82_NAME;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;Self-rule of Central Africa;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_U83_NAME;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;Independence of Ceylon;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U84_NAME;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;Self-rule of Chad;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U85_NAME;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;Self-rule of Congo-Brazzaville;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U86_NAME;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;Self-rule of Gambia;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U88_NAME;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;Self-rule of Ivory Coast;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_U89_NAME;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;Independence of Jamaica;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U90_NAME;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;Self-rule of Kenya;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_U91_NAME;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;Independence of Kuwait;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U92_NAME;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;Self-rule of Malta;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_U93_NAME;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;Independence of Mauritania;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_U94_NAME;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;Independence of Niger;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U95_NAME;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;Self-rule of Rwanda;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_U96_NAME;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;Independence of Senegal;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U97_NAME;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;Self-rule of Tanganyika;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U98_NAME;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;Self-rule of Trinidad and Tobago;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_U99_NAME;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;Self-rule of Togo;;;X
EVT_SELFRULE_DESC;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted autonomy in internal matters and they are readying militia forces.\n\nNote: Granting autonomy is an intermediary phase, giving country in question complete control over its domestic matters, just short of full independence. It's our promise to withdraw from involvement in the country's matters, sooner or later. In a couple of years' time the country may declare itself fully sovereign without need of our further decision.;;;X
EVT_INDEPENDENCE_DESC;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;Colonialism around the world is waning and under pressure of United Nations and various international organizations the subject of giving up superiority over our colonial possessions is currently on the public agenda. Public opinion already accepted the fact that maintaining vast overseas empires in not only unjust but also unproportionately costly. Moreover, one our current colonial possession grew wary of our political and economic influence. Local factions openly ask for being granted full independence and they are readying militia forces.;;;X
EVT_LIBERATE;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;Give them freedom!;;;X
EVT_DONTLIBERATE;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;Cling onto these lands;;;X
EVT_MILACCESS_NAME;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;Colonial bases;;;X
EVT_MILACCESS_DESC;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;We were just given autonomy that we craved for so long. Negotiatable withdraw of our former overlords comes with the price, though, as colonial empires are not ready to give up all their influence overnight. Among those strings of influence that attach ourselves to the former metropolis, is their army. We agreed to accept their troops on our lands and let them maintain their military bases, at least for the time being.;;;X
EVT_MILACCESS_A;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;We hope they will leave, some day;;;X
EVT_FULLINDEPENDENCE_NAME;Full independence;Full independence;Full independence;Full independence;Full independence;Full independence;Full independence;Full independence;;;X
EVT_FULLINDEPENDENCE_DESC;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;After years of pressure and struggles for indepedence, our nation was deemed worthy of autonomy. Since the time we were granted self-rule on, we became true masters in our country and influence of our former overlords diminished and lately became a rather symbolic one. According to the conditions of our independence, we are now given full sovereignty, taking full power of shaping domestic and international politics alike, this coming with complete responsibility for the future of our nation.;;;X
EVT_FULLINDEPENDENCE_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_ENDOFHISTORY_NAME;End of History;End of History;End of History;End of History;End of History;End of History;End of History;End of History;;;X
EVT_ENDOFHISTORY_DESC;"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";"Since the darkest days of World War II, the world had largely recovered from its war wounds and the Cold War developed from its modest beginning to a hot competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Clashes between communism and capitalism dominated the decade, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The conflicts included the Korean War in the beginnings of the decade and the beginning of the Space Race with the launch of Sputnik I. Along with increased testing of nuclear weapons, this created a politically conservative climate. The beginning of decolonization in Africa and Asia occurred in 1950s and accelerated in the following decade. The 1960s have become synonymous with the new, radical, and subversive events and trends of the period, which continued to develop in the following decades. Several governments turned to the left in the early 1960s. In the United States, John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian and staunch anti-communist who pushed for centre-left social reforms such as civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor, was elected to the Presidency; he also pledged to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, a feat that was accomplished in 1969.\n\nEnd of 1963 marks the moment when the New World Order 2 timeline ends. You are free to play for as long as you wish, developing your economic and military power and sparking ahistorical wars, there will be very few events still showing up after this date.";;;X
EVT_ENDOFHISTORY_A;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;Time passes so quickly…;;;X
EVT_COLONIALCLAIMS_NAME;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;Colonial claims;;;X
EVT_COLONIALCLAIMS_DESC;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;Colonial empires, built around each country's concept of Manifest Destiny and will for prestige and power, started to be obsolete in the middle of 20. century, generating more and more costs while becoming less relevant given considerable emancipation of Asian and African elites. Since the end of Second World War European countries largely became accustomed to an idea that the colonialism is coming to an end but for each country the way this end was going to be handled and the how would future relations with former colonies look like was up to discussion.\n\nNote: Giving up the claims only means that those territories will no longer count as your claims but it does not automatically mean that those provinces will soon attain autonomy or independence. Similarly, refusing to give up claims will not make further calls for independence any quieter.;;;X
EVT_COLONIALCLAIMS_A;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;Give up the claims;;;X
EVT_COLONIALCLAIMS_B;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;We won't change our stance!;;;X
EVT_8000202_NAME;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;;;X
EVT_8000202_DESC;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;Albania for long treated Kosovo as a province that should really belong to their state which was spurred by Albanians living in numbers on the other side of the border. However, those claims were far from being realistic and now, in the name of mutual friendship it may be wise to stop our pressure over this issue.;;;X
EVT_8000202_A;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;;;X
EVT_8000202_B;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;;;X
EVT_8000310_NAME;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;Algerian movement for independence;;;X
EVT_8000310_DESC;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;Algeria was arguably the most important of French colonies staying close enough to the metropolitan France and playing key role in maintaining the prestige of French colonial empire. Still, the tensions began to grow and became unbearable in the late 1950s.;;;X
EVT_8000310_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8000608_NAME;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;Angolan movement for independence;;;X
EVT_8000608_DESC;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;The Portuguese regime, refused to accede to Angolan demands for independence, provoking an armed conflict that started in 1961 when black guerrillas attacked both white and black civilians in cross-border operations in northeastern Angola. The war came to be known as the Colonial War. In this struggle, the principal protagonists were the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), founded in 1956, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), which appeared in 1961, and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), founded in 1966.;;;X
EVT_8000608_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8000803_NAME;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;Revolución Libertadora;;;X
EVT_8000803_DESC;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;President Perón was first elected in 1946 and reelected in 1952. At the time his administration was widely supported by the labor unions, the military and the Catholic Church. However, economic problems, some of the government's policies and Perón's own personalism changed this situation. The Catholic Church distanced itself from Perón and by 1954 it was openly anti-Peronist.\n\nBy 1955 Perón had lost the leadership of a large part of the military, who conspired with other political actors. On June 14, Catholic bishops spoke against Perón during a Corpus Christi procession which turned into a demonstration. On June 16 Navy and Air Force fighters bombed Plaza de Mayo, wounding or killing several hundreds of civilians.\n\nOn September 16 a new uprising, led by General Eduardo Lonardi, General Pedro E. Aramburu and Admiral Isaac Rojas, deposed Perón and established a provisional government. The rebellion at Corrientes, which was initially defeated, was led by Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, who later became one of the main players of the future government. Scattered skirmishes and air strikes took place in several cities, including Buenos Aires itself. There were more than 200 fatalities overall. After realizing that the country was on the brink of civil war, Perón resigned and sought asylum in Paraguay.\n\nOn September 23 General Lonardi assumed the presidency and gave a speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada, saying that there would be 'neither victors nor vanquished' (ni vencedores ni vencidos), replaying a phrase uttered by Urquiza when he was victorious over Rosas at the Battle of Caseros. His conciliatory tone earned him the opposition of hard-liners, and in November an internal coup deposed Lonardi and placed General Aramburu in the presidency.;;;X
EVT_8000803_A;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;Oust Peron!;;;X
EVT_8000803_B;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;Revolution fails;;;X
EVT_8000806_NAME;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;Achievements of Juan Peron;;;X
EVT_8000806_DESC;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;Emphasizing an economic policy centerpiece dating from the 1920s, Perón made record investments in Argentina's infrastructure. Investing over US$100 million to modernize the railways (originally built on a myriad of incompatible gauges), he also nationalized a number of small, regional air carriers, forging them into Aerolíneas Argentinas in 1950.\n\nPerón's government is remembered for its record social investments. He introduced a Ministry of Health to the cabinet, its first head, the neurologist Dr. Ramón Carrillo, oversaw the completion of over 4,200 health care facilities. Related works included construction of more than 1,000 kindergartens and over 8,000 schools. The new Minister of Public Works, General Juan Pistarini, oversaw the construction of 650,000 new, public sector homes, as well as of the international airport, one of the largest in the world at the time. The reactivation of the dormant National Mortgage Bank spurred private-sector housing development: averaging over 8 units per 1,000 inhabitants (150,000 a year), the pace was, at the time, at par with that of the United States and one of the highest rates of residential construction in the world.;;;X
EVT_8000806_A;It's great;It's great;It's great;It's great;It's great;It's great;It's great;It's great;;;X
EVT_8000807_NAME;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;Death of Evita;;;X
EVT_8000807_DESC;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;Eva Perón, second wife of the Argentine leader, became a charismatic and powerful speaker on behalf of labor rights. Active in politics, she ran the charitable Eva Perón Foundation, championed women's suffrage in Argentina, and founded the Female Peronist Party.\n\nBy 1951, it had also become evident that her health was rapidly deteriorating. In early 1950, Evita fainted in public and underwent surgery a few days later. On 4 June 1952, Evita rode with Juan Perón in a parade through Buenos Aires in celebration of his re-election as President of Argentina. Evita was by this point so ill that she was unable to stand without support. Underneath her oversized fur coat was a frame made of plaster and wire that allowed her to stand. She developed uterine cancer and was the first Argentine to undergo chemotherapy (a novel treatment at that time). Despite all available treatment, she became emaciated, weighing only 36 kg by June 1952.\n\nEvita died at the age of 33, at 8:25 p.m., on July 26, 1952. The news was immediately broadcast throughout the country, and Argentina went into mourning. A radio broadcast interrupted the broadcasting schedule, with the announcer reading, 'The Press Secretary's Office of the Presidence of the Nation fulfills its very sad duty to inform the people of the Republic that at 20:25 hours deceased Mrs Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation.' Eva Perón was granted an official state funeral and a full Roman Catholic requiem mass.;;;X
EVT_8000807_A;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;Don't cry for me, Argentina;;;X
EVT_8001012_NAME;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;The Snowy Mountains Scheme;;;X
EVT_8001012_DESC;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;The Snowy Mountains Scheme is a hydroelectricity and irrigation complex in south-east Australia. It consists of sixteen major dams, seven power stations, a pumping station, and 225 kilometres of tunnels, pipelines and aqueducts and was constructed between 1949 and 1974. The Chief engineer was Sir William Hudson. It is the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia.;;;X
EVT_8001012_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8001013_NAME;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;Summer Olympic Games 1956;;;X
EVT_8001013_DESC;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;Melbourne was selected as the host city over bids from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and six American cities on 28 April 1949, at the 43rd IOC Session in Rome, Italy. Once underway, the Games unfolded smoothly, and became known as the Friendly Games. The Olympics also left Melbourne with some landmark buildings.;;;X
EVT_8001013_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8001014_NAME;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;Populate or Perish;;;X
EVT_8001014_DESC;After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';After World War II, Australia launched a massive immigration program, believing that having narrowly avoided a Japanese invasion, Australia must 'populate or perish.' Ben Chifley would later declare, 'a powerful enemy looked hungrily toward Australia. In tomorrow's gun flash that threat could come again. We must populate Australia as rapidly as we can before someone else decides to populate it for us.';;;X
EVT_8001014_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8001050_NAME;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;Australia Enters Nuclear Arms Race;;;X
EVT_8001050_DESC;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;7 Feb 1946 – The Federal Government indicated its willingness to participate in Nuclear arms research programs and volunteered swathes of uninhabited land to the testing of atomic weapons. There was almost no protest from the general public.;;;X
EVT_8001050_A;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;We will be the next nuclear power;;;X
EVT_8001051_NAME;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;Australia Lifts Price Controls;;;X
EVT_8001051_DESC;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;1 Mar 1946 – The Federal Government began lifting wartime restrictions and labour controls. Concerned to avoid spiralling prices and wages, the plan was staggered out over several stages, and was completed by the 1st of May and included phasing out certain defence projects. The Commonwealth Employment Service was formed.;;;X
EVT_8001051_A;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;Time for a life of normality;;;X
EVT_8001051_B;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;Not going to happen!;;;X
EVT_8001052_NAME;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;Assistance To British Migrants;;;X
EVT_8001052_DESC;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;5 Apr 1946 – An agreement for assisted passages for British migrants to Australia was signed by both Australian and the British government..;;;X
EVT_8001052_A;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;Heading to the promised land?;;;X
EVT_8001053_NAME;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;First Postwar Flights;;;X
EVT_8001053_DESC;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;12 May 1946 – British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas combined to bring the first postwar flight service from England to Australia using Short Hythe flying boats.;;;X
EVT_8001053_A;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;The world just got smaller;;;X
EVT_8001054_NAME;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;University Of Canberra opened;;;X
EVT_8001054_DESC;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;19 Jun 1946 – The minister for postwar reconstruction J.J. Dedman, introduced legislation to establish the Australian National University in Canberra as a central research centre. The first permanent building was opened in 1952.;;;X
EVT_8001054_A;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;We are a clever country;;;X
EVT_8001055_NAME;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;TAA Connects The States;;;X
EVT_8001055_DESC;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;9 Sep 1946 – Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) began operating a daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney using Douglas DC3s. By the end of the year TAA had connected all the state capitals carrying freight and passengers.;;;X
EVT_8001055_A;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;TAA, connecting the states.;;;X
EVT_8001056_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001056_DESC;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;16 Oct 1946 – A strike began in 2 iron foundries in Vic and eventually spread to all metalworkers becoming a general strike. The strike wreaked havoc on Victoria and left many others in out of work in different industries because of material shortages.;;;X
EVT_8001056_A;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;Marvelous, just bloody marvelous...;;;X
EVT_8001057_NAME;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;National Security Act Rescinded;;;X
EVT_8001057_DESC;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;31 Dec 1946 – The National Security Act was rescinded, however the government did hold onto certain powers and control over regulating pricing on certain products and maintained a few anti-inflationary and anti-profiteering measures.;;;X
EVT_8001057_A;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;The world is stable again.;;;X
EVT_8001057_B;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;Last time we slept, we were almost invaded!;;;X
EVT_8001058_NAME;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;Victorian Strikes End;;;X
EVT_8001058_DESC;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;7 May 1946 – The strike that began back in October 1946 involving Victorian foundry and metalworkers that became a general strike ended after the state government caved in to their demands.;;;X
EVT_8001058_A;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;Give the Union what they demand;;;X
EVT_8001058_B;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;Sack and replace them all;;;X
EVT_8001058_C;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;Execute them all!;;;X
EVT_8001059_NAME;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;Australian Stock Exchange Re-opens;;;X
EVT_8001059_DESC;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;6 Jan 1947 – The Federal Government lifted restrictions on share dealings and allowed stock exchanges on the speculative and free market. This opened many avenues of opportunity for many industries starved of funds since the 5 year ban was put in place.;;;X
EVT_8001059_A;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;Welcome to the land of free markets;;;X
EVT_8001059_B;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;Sure, and have the Reds buy our country??;;;X
EVT_8001060_NAME;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;South Pacific Commission;;;X
EVT_8001060_DESC;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;Jan 1947 – Concerned about the devastation caused by war in the Pacific region, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and the US formed the South Pacific Commission. They hoped to raise living standards in the region, but the commission also reflected wider and more strategic interests in the region. One of the main interests in Asia was containing Bolshevism.;;;X
EVT_8001060_A;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;Asia shall not fall into red hands;;;X
EVT_8001061_NAME;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;Australia's New Army;;;X
EVT_8001061_DESC;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;30 Nov 1947 – With the establishment of the Australian Regular Army, Australia, for the first time had a force capable of deployment in peacetime.;;;X
EVT_8001061_A;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;All for a secure Australia;;;X
EVT_8001062_NAME;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;Australian Antarctic Expedition;;;X
EVT_8001062_DESC;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;26 Dec 1947 – The Australian flag was raised on Heard Island in a short ceremony marking the transfer of Heard and MacDonald islands from Britain to Australia and the beginning of a joint British-Australian 5 year exploration program of the Antarctic glaciers.;;;X
EVT_8001062_A;To new ventures;To new ventures;To new ventures;To new ventures;To new ventures;To new ventures;To new ventures;To new ventures;;;X
EVT_8001063_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001063_DESC;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;4 Feb 1948 – In QLD 10 000 railway men struck in support of demands for increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. A state of emergency was declared.;;;X
EVT_8001063_A;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;Great start to the new year, NOT!;;;X
EVT_8001064_NAME;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;QLD Stikes End;;;X
EVT_8001064_DESC;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;2 Apr 1948 – The strike in QLD involving over 10 000 demanding increased marginal rates for workshops and running shed tradesmen. The strikers did not return to work until the 2nd of April when the government had no choice but to meet their demands.;;;X
EVT_8001064_A;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;We've got no choice...;;;X
EVT_8001065_NAME;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;End of tuberculosis;;;X
EVT_8001065_DESC;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;22 Sep 1948 – A nationwide anti-tuberculosis campaign began. In the 1940s, tuberculosis (TB) was the biggest killer outside of war of individuals between the ages of 20-40. The legislation aimed at early diagnosis and detection by making chest x-rays compulsory.;;;X
EVT_8001065_A;TB is dead;TB is dead;TB is dead;TB is dead;TB is dead;TB is dead;TB is dead;TB is dead;;;X
EVT_8001066_NAME;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;Australian Citizenship;;;X
EVT_8001066_DESC;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;26 Jan 1949 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 became law. This created the status of Australian Citizen which was automatically acquired by people born in or outside Australia to Australian parents, and to British subjects who had lived in Australia for 5 years or more. In future, a woman’s citizenship would not be affected by marriage alone. It was befitting that new citizenship laws would be put into legislation on Australia Day.;;;X
EVT_8001066_A;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;48 years, not a moment too soon;;;X
EVT_8001067_NAME;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;Lawrence Louis Sharkey gaoled;;;X
EVT_8001067_DESC;"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";"20 Jun 1949 – Lawrence Louis Sharkey, chairmen of the Communist party, was convicted for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for uttering seditious (anti-government and anti-Commonwealth) remarks and language with seditious intent. Talking to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ reporter in March he stated that ""If the Soviet forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them."" Sharkey received 3 years imprisonment.";;;X
EVT_8001067_A;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;That's one Red we've stopped!;;;X
EVT_8001067_B;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;We need to 'remove' him;;;X
EVT_8001067_C;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;Well, he is right. Let him go free;;;X
EVT_8001068_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001068_DESC;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;26 Jun 1949 – A coal strike began by miners demanding a 35 hour week, increased wages and long service leave led to severe power cuts and the ripple on effect forcing 123 000 workers across NSW to be stood down.;;;X
EVT_8001068_A;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;NOW WHAT DO I DO!??;;;X
EVT_8001069_NAME;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;Coal Strike Act deemed illegal;;;X
EVT_8001069_DESC;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;6 Jul 1949 – The High Court declared the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act invalid and had one spectator commenting the Act ‘was as dirty as the coal itself.’;;;X
EVT_8001069_A;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;Cut us a break!;;;X
EVT_8001069_B;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;High Court be damned!;;;X
EVT_8001070_NAME;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;Army brought in to end NSW strike crisis;;;X
EVT_8001070_DESC;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;15 Aug 1949 – The strike which affected 123 000 workers across NSW and left them without an income came to an end when the NSW government sent in troops to operate the open-cut mines on the 15th of August.;;;X
EVT_8001070_A;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;Things will never be the same;;;X
EVT_8001071_NAME;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;ASIO Established;;;X
EVT_8001071_DESC;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;1949 – Chifley issued a directive for the establishment of a security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (ASIO).;;;X
EVT_8001071_A;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;Here's to keeping Australia secure;;;X
EVT_8001072_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001072_DESC;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;23 Feb 1950 – A tram strike began in Melbourne.;;;X
EVT_8001072_A;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;This isn't good...;;;X
EVT_8001073_NAME;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;Communist Party Dissolution Act;;;X
EVT_8001073_DESC;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;Apr 1950 – Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Act to parliament. The Act would ban any Communist party from congregating and disqualified communists from holding certain offices. He said ‘Australians must fight the communist wherever we may find him, leaving him no immunity and no sanctuary at all.’;;;X
EVT_8001073_A;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;Better dead, than red;;;X
EVT_8001074_NAME;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;Aid To South Korea;;;X
EVT_8001074_DESC;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;29 Jun 1950 – Menzies announced that the Australian navy was at the disposal of the UN Security Council following a decision to send air and naval forces to the aid of South Korea which had been invaded by North Korea.;;;X
EVT_8001074_A;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;Death to the Reds!;;;X
EVT_8001074_B;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;Keep our boys at home;;;X
EVT_8001075_NAME;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;Vic Tram Strike Ends;;;X
EVT_8001075_DESC;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;24 Apr 1950 – The tram strike which began on the 23rd of February had come to an end. The strikers had achieved their goals for a shorter working week.;;;X
EVT_8001075_A;Finally!;Finally!;Finally!;Finally!;Finally!;Finally!;Finally!;Finally!;;;X
EVT_8001076_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001076_DESC;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;16 Oct 1950 – In Victoria, a railway strike began over the issues of reduced hours and overtime. SA railway workers struck in support.;;;X
EVT_8001076_A;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;This isn't what we needed!;;;X
EVT_8001077_NAME;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;Vic, SA Railway Strikes End;;;X
EVT_8001077_DESC;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;18 Dec 1950 - The Railway Strike which began in Victoria and spread to SA lasted 9 weeks came to an end.;;;X
EVT_8001077_A;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;Thank God for that!;;;X
EVT_8001078_NAME;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;Anti-Communist Act Deemed Illegal;;;X
EVT_8001078_DESC;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;9 Mar 1951 – By a majority of 6 to 1, the High Court ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act invalid. The court stated that the constitution did not give Federal Parliament the authority or power to legislate on such matters.;;;X
EVT_8001078_A;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;You WHAT!!?;;;X
EVT_8001078_B;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;I'll tell you The Law;;;X
EVT_8001078_C;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;Commies already own the country;;;X
EVT_8001079_NAME;National Service;National Service;National Service;National Service;National Service;National Service;National Service;National Service;;;X
EVT_8001079_DESC;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;16 Mar 1951 – Federal Parliament passed the National Service Act. All 18 year old males could be called up to serve in the armed forces for 176 days of training. Trainees could choose which branch of the services they wished to join but to serve in the navy or air force they had to volunteer to leave Australia and her territorial waters.;;;X
EVT_8001079_A;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;Plenty of uniforms for everyone!;;;X
EVT_8001080_NAME;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;ANZUS Pact Signed;;;X
EVT_8001080_DESC;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;1 Sep 1951 – The ANZUS Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and United States) was signed in Washington. The mutual defence pact whereby, if any of the 3 nations were to be attacked in the Pacific, then the signatories would come to the defender’s aid.;;;X
EVT_8001080_A;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;Ensuring the safety of The West;;;X
EVT_8001081_NAME;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;Anti-Communist Referendum Defeated;;;X
EVT_8001081_DESC;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;22 Sep 1951 – The Constitution Alteration Referendum was held. The referendum’s aims were to grant the Federal Government powers to deal with communist parties, communists and all and any other forms ‘in which the red menace may present itself’ was defeated by a very narrow margin.;;;X
EVT_8001081_A;Bugger it;Bugger it;Bugger it;Bugger it;Bugger it;Bugger it;Bugger it;Bugger it;;;X
EVT_8001081_B;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;I say it wasn't defeated.;;;X
EVT_8001082_NAME;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;SEATO Signed;;;X
EVT_8001082_DESC;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;2 Apr 1952 – Agreement was reached by the Australian, US, and British Governments with the Combined Development Agency of America, Britain and Australia over the mining of uranium deposits at Radium Hill, SA. Mining commenced in 1954 and was shared between the three countries.;;;X
EVT_8001082_A;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;Let's defeat bolshevism together.;;;X
EVT_8001083_NAME;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;Atomic Energy Commission Founded;;;X
EVT_8001083_DESC;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;15 Apr 1953 – The Atomic Energy Act was passed, establishing the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with responsibilities to conduct and undertake uranium research and exploration, exercise Federal Government rights and operate generating plants. Major-General J.E.S Stevens was appointed full-time chairman of the commission.;;;X
EVT_8001083_A;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;We will be the next nuclear power.;;;X
EVT_8001084_NAME;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;Royal Visit;;;X
EVT_8001084_DESC;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;3 Feb 1954 – Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip arrived in Sydney to begin an Australian tour, the first by a reigning monarch. It is calculated that roughly 70 per cent of Australia’s total population saw the royal couple on their tour.;;;X
EVT_8001084_A;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;Here's to the Royal Family;;;X
EVT_8001085_NAME;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;Permanent Antarctic Post;;;X
EVT_8001085_DESC;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;13 Feb 1954 – The first permanent Australian station in Antarctica was set up by Sir Douglas Mawson.;;;X
EVT_8001085_A;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;Time for new discoveries;;;X
EVT_8001086_NAME;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;Uranium Mine Opens;;;X
EVT_8001086_DESC;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;Sep 1954 – Menzies opened Australia’s first uranium treatment plant, enabling regular shipments to Britain and the US, in accordance with the 1952 agreement.;;;X
EVT_8001086_A;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;Let's celebrate our endeavour;;;X
EVT_8001086_B;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;Let's celebrate our Red endeavour;;;X
EVT_8001086_C;My uranium!;My uranium!;My uranium!;My uranium!;My uranium!;My uranium!;My uranium!;My uranium!;;;X
EVT_8001087_NAME;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;Letters Of Hope;;;X
EVT_8001087_DESC;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;29 Apr 1955 – Australia’s 33 Catholic bishops and archbishops issued a pastoral letter to be read out in all their churches. It was a message of warning of the menace of bolshevism and the praise of all those who opposed it.;;;X
EVT_8001087_A;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;Keep an eye out for Reds;;;X
EVT_8001087_B;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;We must stifle their voices now;;;X
EVT_8001087_C;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;All schools and workplaces will hear it;;;X
EVT_8001088_NAME;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;Cooperative Surveilance;;;X
EVT_8001088_DESC;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;1955 – Australia and the US signed a secret agreement to set up a seismic facility in Alice Springs to monitor Soviet nuclear activity. This lead to a short lived panic in the US and Australia after recording 11 detonations in under 24 hours. Both Australia and the US realised that it was impossible for the Soviet Union to have so many bombs once the count went over 37 in just over 5 days and discovered that the explosions were infact stars in outer space.;;;X
EVT_8001088_A;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;Who would've thought...;;;X
EVT_8001089_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001089_DESC;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;23 Jan 1956 – All ports and shipping were paralysed when waterside workers went on strike over working practices and control of hiring.;;;X
EVT_8001089_A;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;;;X
EVT_8001090_NAME;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!;;;X
EVT_8001090_DESC;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;17 Feb 1956 – The conciliation commissioner reduced award wages for shearers by 5 per cent in all states except QLD. Sheepshearers inevitably went on strike in protest of the new wages.;;;X
EVT_8001090_A;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;Damn Union thugs!;;;X
EVT_8001091_NAME;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;Waterside Strike Ends;;;X
EVT_8001091_DESC;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;18 Feb 1956 – Today marks the end of the waterside workers’ strikes that crippled shipping around the nation.;;;X
EVT_8001091_A;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;About bloody time!;;;X
EVT_8001092_NAME;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;The Shearers Get To Work;;;X
EVT_8001092_DESC;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;12 Oct 1956 – The sheepshearers’ strike came to an end when the Federal Government gave in to their demands.;;;X
EVT_8001092_A;About time!!!;About time!!!;About time!!!;About time!!!;About time!!!;About time!!!;About time!!!;About time!!!;;;X
EVT_8001093_NAME;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;Eildon Dam Opens;;;X
EVT_8001093_DESC;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;19 Oct 1956 – Henry Bolte opened the Eildon Dam, the largest water storage system in the Southern Hemisphere.;;;X
EVT_8001093_A;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;Australia will soon be drought free;;;X
EVT_8001094_NAME;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;3000 Flee Hungary Tyranny;;;X
EVT_8001094_DESC;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;8 Nov 1956 – A.G. Townley, minister for immigration, announced that Australia would accept 3000 refugees from Hungary fleeing from the Soviet invasion.;;;X
EVT_8001094_A;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;We will help them resettle;;;X
EVT_8001094_B;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;Bugger them! They may be spies;;;X
EVT_8001095_NAME;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;Ansett Takes Off;;;X
EVT_8001095_DESC;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;23 Aug 1957 – Ansett Airways Pty Ltd took over ANA and became the principle competitor of the Government’s airline, TAA. Ansett would set many benchmarks over the coming decades introducing new innovations including reclining seats, business and first class seats as well as inflight entertainment before its demise in 2001 and 2002 due to financial collapse.;;;X
EVT_8001095_A;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;There goes a pioneer;;;X
EVT_8001096_NAME;"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";"Around The World Service""";;;X
EVT_8001096_DESC;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;14 Jan 1958 – Two QANTAS Lockheed Constellations took off from Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport to inaugurate the airlines’ ‘Around the world service’. The ‘Southern Aurora’ flew eastwards and the ‘Southern Zephyr’ flew westwards. Both arrived in London and returned within six days.;;;X
EVT_8001096_A;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;This is a wonderful day;;;X
EVT_8001406_NAME;The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);The King's Crisis (Koningskwestie);;;X
EVT_8001406_DESC;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;In 1944-1945 the Belgian public opinion and the politicians suspected the king (who was staying in occupied Belgium after Belgian army surrendered on 28 May 1940 until June 1944 when the Germans took him to Germany) of being a collaborationist of the Nazi during Belgium's occupation.\n\nIn May 1945 the communists demanded that Leopold abdicate. The king had been liberated by the US Army from captivity in Strobl, Austria, on 7 May 1945, the day before the Allies' victory. On 9 May 1945 Prince Charles, Leopold III's brother (who was appointed Regent when the German occupation of Belgium ended in September 1944) and Achille Van Acker's government were going immediately to Strobl. Van Acker met the king on 10 May and 11 May and negotiated conditions for his return: Leopold was requested to publicly praise the Allied forces, purge his entourage, and renew his commitment to parliamentary democracy. At first, an agreement remained out of reach. After Van Acker's return from Strobl, the split over the monarchy deepened and when negotiations resumed in June, the king's commitment to meet the conditions was no longer sufficient for an agreement.\n\nOn 19 July 1945, Parliament acted to interpret the article 82 of the Belgian constitution about Leopold's inability to reign stating that the King does not resume the exercise of his constitutional powers until after a deliberation of the Houses sitting in joint session stating that the impossibility has come to an end. The rightwing political parties dominating in Flanders became more indulgent, while the left-wing political parties, dominating in Wallonia and Brussels, remained hostile to the king's return on the throne. But when, as a result of the general elections on 4 June 1950, the Catholics received an absolute majority in seats in Parliament, this majority, voted that the impossibility to reign had come to an end. So the king was able to return.\n\nThe king would came back on 22 July but before he came back, before the vote about the end of his impossibility to reign, there were important strikes, even in Flanders. Between 10 July and 12 July the whole black country (the coal mining area centering on Charleroi), was paralized by strike. Arthur Gailly stated in the park of Charleroi: It is better to separate than to submit. On 14 July, there were 10,000 demonstrators in La Louvi?re with banners: Leopold to the gallows, Abdication!, Down with Leopold, Hang him, hang him! On the same day strikes broke out in Ghent, Namur, Mons, the Borinage, Verviers the Centre.\n\nOn 31 July 1950, Leopold III was forced to request his Government and the Parliament to approve a law delegating his royal powers to his son, Prince Baudouin, who took the constitutional oath before the United Chambers of the Belgian Parliament as Prince Royal on 11 August 1950.;;;X
EVT_8001406_A;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;Let's let the young Boudewijn ascend;;;X
EVT_8001406_B;Let the King return;Let the King return;Let the King return;Let the King return;Let the King return;Let the King return;Let the King return;Let the King return;;;X
EVT_8001406_C;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;Let the Prince Regent remain;;;X
EVT_8001512_NAME;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;Dahomean movement for independence;;;X
EVT_8001512_DESC;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;In 1946, Dahomey became an overseas territory with its own parliament and representation in the French national assembly, and on 4 December 1958, it became the République du Dahomey, self-governing within the French Community.\n\nOn 1 August 1960, the Republic of Dahomey gained full independence from France. The first president was Hubert Maga, who bore the title Prime Minister during the country's last year under French rule.;;;X
EVT_8001512_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8001601_NAME;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;Coronation of Jigme Dorji Wangchuck;;;X
EVT_8001601_DESC;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;Jigme Dorji Wangchuck was the Third Druk Gyalpo of Bhutan. He began to open Bhutan to the outside world, began modernization, and took the first steps toward democratization. Upon succeeding his father, Jigme Wangchuck, on 27 October 1952, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck put an end to feudalism and slavery and released all remaining serfs. He encouraged certain modern inventions to assist the local peasantry and introduced wheeled vehicles, where previously the transportation of crops and people was done manually. He established a High court and reorganized the judicial system. In 1953, he established the Tshogdu or National Assembly - Bhutan's first unicameral Parliament.;;;X
EVT_8001801_NAME;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;Deposition of Gualberto Villarroel;;;X
EVT_8001801_DESC;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party that supported the civilian-military government were deposed and its leaders have to flee the country. The power in Bolivia is taken by the mining oligarchy and Partido Izquierda Revolucionario. For the next few years fraudulent elections and uncertainty of the future will mark the Bolivian politics.;;;X
EVT_8001801_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8001803_NAME;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;Enrique Hertzog steps down;;;X
EVT_8001803_DESC;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;The legislative elections of 1949 confirmed the dramatic ascendancy of the parties of the further Left, and the ruling party lost trust in the relatively more conciliatory Hertzog's ability to control the situation. They forced his resignation in favor of his far more combative Vice-President, Mamerto Urriolagoitia, specifying a non-existent illness.;;;X
EVT_8001803_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8001804_NAME;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;Mamertazo;;;X
EVT_8001804_DESC;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;Hugo Ballivián Rojas, a career military officer, was Commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces when President Mamerto Urriolagoitia called upon him to take over as extra-Constitutional chief executive in order to prevent the swearing-in of the reform-minded President-elect, Víctor Paz Estenssoro. This was a self-coup that became popularly known as the Mamertazo. Installing himself in the Palacio Quemado, Ballivián was the oligarchy's last hope to 'turn back the hands of the clock,' but the situation was apparently beyond repair. Despite declaring a nationwide curfew and exiling and imprisoning a number of opposition leaders, the demonstrations, work stoppages, and uprisings continued.;;;X
EVT_8001804_A;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;Ask for overthrowing own government;;;X
EVT_8001804_B;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;Honor electoral results;;;X
EVT_8001805_NAME;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;Bolivian National Revolution;;;X
EVT_8001805_DESC;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;Introduced during the Mamertazo, the military government was short-lived. His overthrow, known as the Bolivian National Revolution meant return to democracy and soon, sweeping social and economic reforms. Universal suffrage was introduced, a sweeping land reform carried out, rural education promoted, and country's largest tin mines were nationalized. The State also attempted to incorporate into national life the Aymara and Quechua peasants, constituting 65 percent of population.;;;X
EVT_8001805_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002001_NAME;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;End of Estado Novo;;;X
EVT_8002001_DESC;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;In 1945 President Getúlio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime and decreed an amnesty to political prisoners. The Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurélio de Góis Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil to guarantee free and regular elections.;;;X
EVT_8002001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002004_NAME;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;Suicide of Vargas;;;X
EVT_8002004_DESC;Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';Vargas' political adversaries initiated a crisis which culminated in the 'Rua Tonelero', where Major Rubens Vaz was killed during an attempt on the life of Vargas' main adversary, Carlos Lacerda. Lieutenant Gregório Fortunato, chief of Vargas' personal guard, was accused of masterminding the assassination attempt. This aroused a reaction in the military against Vargas and the generals demanded his resignation. In a last ditch effort Vargas called a special cabinet meeting on the eve of August 24, but rumors spread that the armed forces officers were implacable.\n\nFeeling the situation beyond his control, Vargas shot himself in the chest on August 24, 1954 in the Catete Palace.The famous last lines read, 'Serenely, I take my first step on the road to eternity and I leave life to enter history.';;;X
EVT_8002004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002007_NAME;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;Resignation of Quadros;;;X
EVT_8002007_DESC;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;Quadros laid the blame for the country's high rate of inflation on his predecessor, Juscelino Kubitschek. As president, Quadros outlawed gambling, banned women from wearing bikinis on the beach, and established relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba, trying to achieve a neutralist international policy. The re-establishment of relations with the Socialist Bloc in the middle of the Cold War cost him the support of the UDN in Congress, so that he was left with no real power.\n\nHe resigned on August 25, 1961, expecting to return to the presidency by acclamation of the Brazilian people or by request of the National Congress of Brazil and the military, which, concerned about the possibility of the leftist vice president Jo?o Goulart taking the oath as president, would refuse Quadros' resignation. This maneuver, however, was immediately rejected by the Brazilian legislature, which accepted his resignation and called on the president of the Congress, Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, to assume office until the vice president came back from his trip to Communist China. Goulart finally took the oath as president on September 7, 1961, although his power was restricted by an amendment to the Constitution passed on September 2, that created a parliamentary system of Government. He was not of the same party as Quadros, at the time, Brazilians could vote for a ticket that had candidates for president and vice president from different parties.\n\nQuadros's resignation initiated a serious political crisis that culminated in a military coup in 1964.;;;X
EVT_8002007_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002009_NAME;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;Plano de Metas;;;X
EVT_8002009_DESC;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;This national development program, launched in 1956, led to opening of the national economy for the foreign capital along with generous credit policy offered to the internal market. It promoted the industrialization and electrification, based mostly on the private sector. Kubitschek also ensured the construction of transregional roads which helped the integration of the Amazonic Brazilian interior. The economy boomed, but at the cost of accelerating inflation and rising national debt.;;;X
EVT_8002009_A;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;Fifty years of development in five;;;X
EVT_8002009_B;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;;;X
EVT_8002010_NAME;The new capital;The new capital;The new capital;The new capital;The new capital;The new capital;The new capital;The new capital;;;X
EVT_8002010_DESC;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;President Juscelino Kubitschek ordered the construction of Brasilia, fulfilling an article of the country's constitution dating back to 1891 stating that the capital should be moved from Rio de Janeiro to a place close to the center of the country. Lucio Costa won a contest and was the main urban planner. Oscar Niemeyer, a close friend of Lucio's, was the chief architect of most public buildings and Roberto Burle Marx was the landscape designer.;;;X
EVT_8002010_A;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;Build Brasilia;;;X
EVT_8002010_B;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;Save the money;;;X
EVT_8002011_NAME;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;The new capital is ready;;;X
EVT_8002011_DESC;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;Brasília was built in 41 months, from 1956 to April 21, 1960, when it was officially inaugurated. From the beginning it was one of Brazilian landmarks and an example of an ambitious architectural project.;;;X
EVT_8002011_A;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;Let's move to the interior;;;X
EVT_8002101_NAME;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;Coronation of Ahmad Tajuddin;;;X
EVT_8002101_DESC;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;Ahmad Tajuddin was the 27th sultan of Brunei from September 11, 1924 until his death. After the death of his father, Sultan Muhammad Jamalul Alam II, due to his young age of 11, the reign was temporarily held by a Council of Regency from September 11, 1924 to September 19, 1931.;;;X
EVT_8002102_NAME;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;Coronation of Omar Ali Saifuddien III;;;X
EVT_8002102_DESC;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;On 20 September 1949, His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin celebrated his Silver Jubilee or the 25th anniversary of ascending the throne when he was knighted and bestowed with the KBE by the British High Commissioner to Brunei on behalf of King George VI.\n\nA few months after the celebration, Sultan was on his way to Britain for an official visit when  he was taken ill and later died in Singapore of a haemorrhage. It was 4 June 1950 and he died at the young age of thirty six.\n\nAfter his untimely death from natural causes, he was succeeded by his brother who became His Royal Highness Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III, the 28th Sultan of Brunei.;;;X
EVT_8002202_NAME;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;Simeon II comes of age;;;X
EVT_8002202_DESC;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and is related to various European royalty, including Queen Elizabeth II, King Albert II of the Belgians and the Kings Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Umberto II of Italy. Following his birth, Boris III sent an air force officer to the River Jordan to obtain water for Simeon's baptism in the Orthodox faith. He became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father, who had just returned to Bulgaria from a meeting with Adolf Hitler. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents. Now, after turning 18, Simeon II is fully introduced to his duties as the Bulgarian tsar, to rule in name of the Bulgarian people.;;;X
EVT_8002202_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002304_NAME;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;Ne Win's Coup;;;X
EVT_8002304_DESC;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;Ne Win was first asked to serve as interim prime minister from 28 October 1958 by U Nu, when the AFPFL split into two factions and U Nu barely survived a motion of no-confidence against his government in parliament. Ne Win restored order during the period known as the Ne Win caretaker government'. Elections were held in February 1960 and Ne Win handed back power to the victorious U Nu on 4 April 1960.\n\nLess than two years later, on 2 March 1962, Ne Win again seized power in a military coup d'etat. Ne Win became head of state as Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and also Prime Minister. The coup was characterized as 'bloodless' by the world's media, yet following riots at Rangoon University in July 1962, troops were sent to restore order. They fired on protestors and destroyed the student union building.\n\nShortly afterwards, around 8 pm local time, Ne Win addressed the nation in a five minute long radio speech which concluded with the statement: 'if these disturbances were made to challenge us, I have to declare that we will fight sword with sword and spear with spear'.;;;X
EVT_8002304_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002305_NAME;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;Burmese Way to Socialism;;;X
EVT_8002305_DESC;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;The Burmese Way to Socialism refers to the ideology of the Socialist regime in Burma, from 1962 to 1988, when the 1962 coup d'état was led by Ne Win and the military to remove U Nu from power. More specifically, the Burmese Way to Socialism is an economic treatise written in April 1962 by the Revolutionary Council, shortly after the coup, as a blueprint for economic development, reducing foreign influence in Burma, and increasing the role of the military.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism has largely been described by scholars as being xenophobic, superstitious and an 'abject failure,' turning one of the most prosperous countries in Asia into one of the world's poorest. However, it may have served to increase domestic stability and keep Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.\n\nThe Burmese Way to Socialism, by far, greatly increased poverty, isolation, and is described as 'disastrous'. Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency based in denominations divisible by 9, a number he considered auspicious, and thus wiped out the savings of millions of Burmese, led the military, which established the State Law and Order Restoration Council in 1988, to stage a coup. The Socialist coup led by Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council (RC) in 1962 was done under the pretext of economic, religious and political crises in the country, particularly the issue of federalism and the right of Burmese states from seceding from the Union.;;;X
EVT_8002305_DESC;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002306_NAME;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;Insurgencies in the North;;;X
EVT_8002306_DESC;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;In the first few years of Burmese independence remote areas of Burma were controlled by various rebellious forces. Among other these were Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the Yebaw Hpyu led by Bo La Yaung, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers, Arakanese Muslims, and the Karen  National Union (KNU).\n\nHistorically, defeated Kuomintang forces also used Burma as their launching ground for guerilla operations for many years.;;;X
EVT_8002306_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002512_NAME;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;Cameroonian movement for independence;;;X
EVT_8002512_DESC;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;With the growing popularity of Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of Cameroon's People Union (UPC), situation in the country becomes hot and cries for independence can be heard.;;;X
EVT_8002512_A;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;Welcome new times;;;X
EVT_8002608_NAME;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;;;X
EVT_8002608_DESC;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;Newfoundlanders from Eastern Canada relinquished their government in 1934 and become a crown colony ruled by a British governor. Since then, popular sentiment grew favourable toward the United States, alarming the Canadian government. In 1948, the British government gave voters three Referendum choices: remaining a crown colony, returning to Dominion status (that is, independence), or joining Canada. Joining the U.S. was not made an option.;;;X
EVT_8002608_A;Join Canada;Join Canada;Join Canada;Join Canada;Join Canada;Join Canada;Join Canada;Join Canada;;;X
EVT_8002608_B;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;Remain colony of the Crown;;;X
EVT_8002608_C;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;Return to self-governance!;;;X
EVT_8002609_NAME;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;Future of Newfoundland;;;X
EVT_8002609_DESC;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;Even though the issue was hotly debated and controversial and the final results were very close, Newfoundlanders decided to join our country for our common good.;;;X
EVT_8002609_A;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;;;X
EVT_8002610_NAME;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;Discovery of new oil fields;;;X
EVT_8002610_DESC;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;New oil fields were discovered in Alberta spurring development of this region.;;;X
EVT_8002610_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002611_NAME;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;Canadian Red Scare;;;X
EVT_8002611_DESC;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;After the war, the cold war setup brought internal tensions and fear against communist. When Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the Soviet Embassy to Canada in Ottawa, defected in 1945, fears of Soviet espionage led to a red scare and the arrest and conviction of a 18 people, including Communist Member of Parliament Fred Rose.;;;X
EVT_8002611_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002612_NAME;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;Avro CF-105 Arrow Interceptor;;;X
EVT_8002612_DESC;"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";"The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a Canadian delta-winged interceptor aircraft, considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry and one of the most advanced constructions of this type in the world. It was meant to be the first aircraft fitted with a rudimentary fly-by-wire system in which an electronic control servo would move the various flight controls.\n\nIn the post-Second World War period, the Soviet Union began developing a capable fleet of long-range bombers with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across North America, over the Arctic, and Europe. For Canada, to counter this threat, the development of capable interceptors was imperative.\n\nStill, over the 1950s decade, defence against ballistic missiles was also becoming a priority. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a ""missile gap"" began spreading. It was becoming clear that Canada could afford the Avro Arrow interceptor project or Bomarc/SAGE missile system, but not both. It was not until June 1957, however, when the governing Liberals lost the federal election and a Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker took power, that the aircraft's fate began to noticeably change. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what the Conservatives claimed was ""rampant Liberal spending.""\n\nThe Arrow's cancellation was announced on 20 February 1959. The day became known as ""Black Friday"" in the Canadian aviation industry.";;;X
EVT_8002612_A;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;Cancel the project;;;X
EVT_8002612_B;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;Find funds to push the project through;;;X
EVT_8002612_C;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;Cut on costs and cancel the project;;;X
EVT_8002809_NAME;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;;;X
EVT_8002809_DESC;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;Land reform was the major focus of policy as a result of China's vast rural population. Lands of former landlords were confiscated by the government and subsequently redistributed to the lower-class peasants. Peasants were classified (see Zhen Fan) into different categories, As a period of social revolution, Mao wiped out the old landlord class, and gradually equalized the wealth gap in the remaining classes. In rural China, political movements caused the humiliation and death of many landowners.;;;X
EVT_8002809_A;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;;;X
EVT_8002809_B;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;;;X
EVT_8002810_NAME;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;Three Anti- and Five Anti-;;;X
EVT_8002810_DESC;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were designed to target the capitalist class. The Communist party set a very vague guideline of who could be charged, as it became an all out war against the bourgeoisie in China. Deng Xiaoping warned the people 'not to be corrupted by capitalist thinking'. The 'antis' imposed were against: bribery, theft of state property, tax evasion, cheating on government contracts, stealing state economic information.;;;X
EVT_8002810_A;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;;;X
EVT_8002810_B;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;;;X
EVT_8002811_NAME;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;Anti-Rightist Movement;;;X
EVT_8002811_DESC;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;The Anti-Rightist Movement in the 1950s and early 1960s consisted of a series of campaigns to purge alleged 'rightists' within the Communist Party of China  (CPC) and abroad. The definition of 'rightists' was not always consistent, sometimes including critics to the left of the government, but officially referred to those intellectuals who appeared to favour capitalism and class divisions and against collectivization. The campaigns saw the political persecution of an estimated 550 000.;;;X
EVT_8002811_A;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;Enact reforms;;;X
EVT_8002811_B;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;;;X
EVT_8002812_NAME;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;The Great Leap Forward;;;X
EVT_8002812_DESC;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;Mao's social and cultural programs were mostly popular in the early 1950s. However, China's strained relations with new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev seeded drive to reform China's economic system. The 'Great Leap Forward' aimed at rapidly raising industrial and agricultural production. Mao announced the goal of surpassing the steel production output of Great Britain by 1968. 'Backyard factories' producing useless steel became a hallmark of the period.;;;X
EVT_8002812_A;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;Take the Leap;;;X
EVT_8002812_B;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;We'll stay where we are;;;X
EVT_8002813_NAME;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;Implication of the Great Leap Forward;;;X
EVT_8002813_DESC;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;The results of the economic program were disastrous. Normal market mechanisms were disrupted, agricultural production fell behind, and Mainland China's people exhausted themselves producing shoddy, unsellable goods. Starvation appeared even in fertile agricultural areas. Combination of poor planning as well as natural disasters resulted in widespread famine and many deaths. According to various sources, the resulting death toll was likely between 20 and 40 million.;;;X
EVT_8002813_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002814_NAME;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;Sino-Soviet split;;;X
EVT_8002814_DESC;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;The Sino–Soviet split was the gradual worsening of relations between the People's Republic of China and the USSR during the Cold War. Since 1956, the countries had been diverging ideologically, and, beginning in 1961, the Chinese Communists formally denounced 'The Revisionist Traitor Group of Soviet Leadership.' Their doctrinal divergence owed as much to Chinese and Russian national interest, as with the régimes’ interpretative Marxist ideologies.;;;X
EVT_8002814_A;Break up!;Break up!;Break up!;Break up!;Break up!;Break up!;Break up!;Break up!;;;X
EVT_8002814_B;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;Try to reconcile differences;;;X
EVT_8002814_C;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;…And propose military alliance!;;;X
EVT_8002815_NAME;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;;;X
EVT_8002815_DESC;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. For Mao, alliance with us is possible, and we must decide, whether our engagement in Far East should go that far.;;;X
EVT_8002815_A;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;;;X
EVT_8002815_B;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;Peasant and workers of the world, unite!;;;X
EVT_8002816_NAME;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;The Great Communist Alliance;;;X
EVT_8002816_DESC;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;Historically, political and ideological relations between the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Cold War were tense. China and the Soviet Union were the two largest Communist states in the world. The doctrinal divergence derived from Chinese and Russian national interests, and from the régimes' respective interpretations of Marxism: Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Ideological debate between the Communist parties of Russia and China also concerned the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West. Yet, to the Chinese public, Mao Zedong proposed a belligerent attitude towards capitalist countries, an initial rejection of peaceful coexistence, which he perceived as Marxist revisionism from the Soviet Union. Moreover, since 1956, China and the USSR had progressively diverged about Marxist ideology, and, by 1961, when the doctrinal differences proved intractable, the Communist Party of China formally denounced the Soviet variety of Communism as a product of 'Revisionist Traitors', i.e., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Nikita Krushchev.\n\nHowever, recent diplomatic advances of both countries proved successful in negating possible conflicts. It seems that Soviets would be worthy allies, if only they agree to this deal.;;;X
EVT_8002816_A;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;Let it remain friendship only;;;X
EVT_8002816_B;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;Peasant and workers of the world can unite!;;;X
EVT_8002909_NAME;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;;;X
EVT_8002909_DESC;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. These rural reforms were very successful in Taiwan.;;;X
EVT_8002909_A;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;Enact the reforms;;;X
EVT_8002909_B;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;Let's not trouble ourselves;;;X
EVT_8002920_NAME;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;Alignment of the Republic of China;;;X
EVT_8002920_DESC;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;Lengthy struggles with the Japanese and numerous foes within our borders, most importantly communists, showed us that alone we are susceptible to instability and we may need strong support in the difficult world of the Cold War.\n\nOur natural choice would be to go hand in hand with Americans who already supported us with military equipment and cash loans. However, we could also reconcile with left-wing activists within our borders and once again, like in the 1920s, seek friendship with mighty Soviet Union. In spite of ideological differences, this will provide us with an ally that is closer and could provide more tangible support, if only Soviets forgive Chiang his nationalism and social conservatism. We could count on reunification with Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, which are currently well protected by USSR. At last, there is nothing stopping us from remaining neutral and awaiting World War 3 with our options open.;;;X
EVT_8002920_A;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;Seek alliance with USA;;;X
EVT_8002920_B;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;;;X
EVT_8002920_C;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;Seek alliance with USSR;;;X
EVT_8002921_NAME;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;;;X
EVT_8002921_DESC;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and gain a strong foothold in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war?;;;X
EVT_8002921_A;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;;;X
EVT_8002921_B;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;;;X
EVT_8002922_NAME;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;Nationalist China seeks alliance;;;X
EVT_8002922_DESC;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;After winning the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek looked for options to secure future of this country and laid his hopes in our friendship and cooperation. Already in 1921, the Soviet Union began supporting the Kuomintang, and in 1923, the Comintern instructed the Communist Party of China to sign a military treaty with the KMT, and now we Chiang Kai-shek went back to those early days of common vision for China. It is hard to forget his atrocities against communists but if we indeed agree to this alliance we may count on inclusion of more left-wing politicians in the mainstream of politics. Shall we accept his offer of military pact and make a strong bulwark against capitalists in Eastern Asia, so much important on the brink of possible future war? Chinese made it clear that upon our acceptation, they also expect getting free hand in Mongolia and Sinkiang so they may annex those regions freely without our intervention.;;;X
EVT_8002922_A;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;Sign the pact!;;;X
EVT_8002922_B;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;Let's not get tied in Asia;;;X
EVT_8002923_NAME;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;Integration of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang;;;X
EVT_8002923_DESC;"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";"Both Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang were territories of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Mongolians turned independent after proclamation of the Chinese Republic in 1912, when the Mongolian government around the Bogd Khan stressed that both Mongolia and China had been administered by the Manchus, but after the fall of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 it was simply that the contract had become invalid. Sinkiang (or Xinjiang, ""new frontier"") was established as a Chinese province in 1884, dropping the old name of Huijiang or 'Muslimland' but since then became virtually separate state under successive warlords and strong influence of communism.\n\nNow our alliance with the Soviet Union allows us to easily subjugate those lands, lawfully belonging to us, again.";;;X
EVT_8002923_A;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;Welcome Qing legacy!;;;X
EVT_8002923_B;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;Annex Mongolia only;;;X
EVT_8002923_C;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;Annex Sinkiang only;;;X
EVT_8002923_D;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;Let's not overextend;;;X
EVT_8002932_NAME;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;Reclaiming lands of Imperial China;;;X
EVT_8002932_DESC;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;Now, as we are in the alliance with United States, we cannot reap immediate benefits of this cooperation, with northern and western frontiers controlled by communist nations of Soviet Union and Mongolia. World War 3 seems possible though and if we come out victorious, our American allies will be very eager to reward us with territorial gains at the cost of the fallen communists. We claim back all our historical Qing lands lost through the treaties of Nerchinsk (1689) and Aigun (1858) to Russia in the anticipation of the future military conflict to realize this goal.;;;X
EVT_8002932_A;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;Unequal treaties will soon be void!;;;X
EVT_8002924_NAME;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;Nationalist China allies with USSR;;;X
EVT_8002924_DESC;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In a move unexpected to many and to us above all, Chiang Kai-shek was swayed by left-wing element in his party and decided that an ally close at hand, however repulsive he may be for a nationalist generalissimo, is better than a promise of support from beyond the seas. Nationalist China and Soviet Union put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. With Soviet backing, Nationalists made also clear that we may forget about repayment of their huge debts which are still outstanding.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures and unorthodox approach to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as communist extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will turn their backs on Soviet Union?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the Soviet Union will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;;;X
EVT_8002924_A;Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);Put 'Operation Red Turncoat' into motion! (very low chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8002924_B;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;;;X
EVT_8002925_NAME;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by an American agent;;;X
EVT_8002925_DESC;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;United States are outraged by our alliance with the Soviet Union and sent its lackeys to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and leftist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Americans who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USSR. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed left-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero.;;;X
EVT_8002925_A;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;;;X
EVT_8002925_B;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USSR;;;X
EVT_8002925_C;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USSR!;;;X
EVT_8002926_NAME;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;;;X
EVT_8002926_DESC;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, pushing frontiers of our sphere of influence far in the east. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is an American spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;;;X
EVT_8002926_A;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;;;X
EVT_8002926_B;That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8002927_NAME;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;Nationalist China allies with USA;;;X
EVT_8002927_DESC;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;In an expected but still disconcerting move, Chiang Kai-shek decided that huge help he already received from capitalists and imperalists to crush the revolution of workers and peasants is not enough to ensure his iron grasp on China. Nationalist China and United States put signatures on a document that promises economic and commercial cooperation but in the end military pact as well. This will put American troops and military bases close to our raw materials base in Siberia and may prove decisive in the case of future conflict.\n\nThis shocking move upsets worldwide power balance strongly to our detriment and our intelligence service advises us to use most drastic measures to make a last minute change to this situation. Shall we authorize an assassination attempt at Chiang Kai-shek, disguised as a fringe right-wing extremists, in the hope that the rest of disoriented leadership will be less supportive of an alliance with USA and rather reconciliate with left-wing forces?\n\nNote that there is slight possibility, if assassination attempt is successful but our involvement becomes known too, that the United States will spark World War 3 by attacking both us and China.;;;X
EVT_8002927_A;Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);Crush fascists by all means possible! (very low chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8002927_B;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;Decision of Kuomintang is probably final;;;X
EVT_8002928_NAME;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;Chiang Kai-shek is attacked by a Soviet agent;;;X
EVT_8002928_DESC;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;Soviet Union is outraged by our alliance with the United States and sent its red butchers to assassinate our generalissimo, in the hope that change of our leaning is still possible.\n\nIf Chiang Kai-shek lives through, the alliance will surely do too but internal politics will become even harsher and rightist. If the attack succeeds, it is possible that the rest of KMT gives belief to signs that these were Soviets who orchestrated this assault and will uphold the alliance with USA. It is possible though that the disoriented leadership make a change of policy in belief that indeed right-wing extremists killed their beloved war hero and it is time to reconciliate with the communists.;;;X
EVT_8002928_A;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;Kai-shek lives!;;;X
EVT_8002928_B;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;Kai-shek is dead but China upholds its alliance with USA;;;X
EVT_8002928_C;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;Kai-shek is dead and China turns back on USA!;;;X
EVT_8002929_NAME;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;China reneges on our military alliance;;;X
EVT_8002929_DESC;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;It seemed that China will be securely engaged in military alliance with us, giving us a strong foothold in the Far East. But Chiang Kai-shek, the mastermind behind this suprising move, is now dead. He was shot by an assailant who, beyond any doubt, is a Soviet spy. That is both a slight to our national pride as well as international interests. Shall we presume that this construes a casus belli for the new World War?;;;X
EVT_8002929_A;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;Tough luck, we were close;;;X
EVT_8002929_B;That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);That indeed means war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8002930_NAME;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;Recreation of Communist China;;;X
EVT_8002930_DESC;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;Our initial attempts at preventing alliance of Nationalist China and United States proved ineffective and we begin to miss any further options. It is difficult to accept American troops at our eastern gates too, though. What we may do now, before it is too late, is to recreate Communist China with the help of our Mongolian comrades, with our full economic, logistical and military support of course. The Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee would readily attack China before it is too late, and our mighty Red Army would follow in their steps. This will make it well possible to crush Chiang and reinstate communists in Beijing but, beyond any doubt, this will mean that we are in full war with United States as well, according to their military pact that was signed to prevent this very situation.;;;X
EVT_8002930_A;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;Let's not go too far;;;X
EVT_8002930_B;Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);Red China is worth every price! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8002931_NAME;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;Outer Mongolian Revolutionary Committee of China;;;X
EVT_8002931_DESC;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;For the last three decades, under the revolutionary guidance of our Soviet comrades, we stressed our independence from Nationalist China to build our own prosperous future on the steppes. Now the situation changes and it is impervious for the worldwide revolution that we play the role of a stub of the new China, the reborn communist one, that will reconquer the rest of the lands from the hands of fascist imperialists. Many representatives at the Great Khural voice their concerns over this, but Soviet pressure is immense and before the proclamation of the new Chinese revolutionary committee is made, Soviet troops already make it through the Chinese border to bring communism to these lands again.;;;X
EVT_8002931_A;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;Communism will prevail!;;;X
EVT_8002940_NAME;New communist cells;New communist cells;New communist cells;New communist cells;New communist cells;New communist cells;New communist cells;New communist cells;;;X
EVT_8002940_DESC;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;Soviet Union had to accept communist defeat in China but exiled followers of Mao Zedong still want to meddle with Chinese affairs and USSR is eager to pay their checks. Lately new communist cells were founded within our state, spreading dissent and sabotaging our industry. Unless we undertake measure to be even more effective, communists will be free to roam and damage everything we achieved.;;;X
EVT_8002940_A;White Terror!;White Terror!;White Terror!;White Terror!;White Terror!;White Terror!;White Terror!;White Terror!;;;X
EVT_8002940_B;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;Let's be lenient;;;X
EVT_8002941_NAME;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;Instability of Republic of China;;;X
EVT_8002941_DESC;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;Republic of China emerged from the civil war victorious and nominally a great military power but actually a nation was exhausted. The economy deteriorated, sapped by the military demands of foreign war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation and by Nationalist profiteering, speculation and hoarding. Starvation came in the wake of the war, and millions were rendered homeless by floods and the unsettled conditions in many parts of the country.\n\n The government must seek to enlist popular support through internal reforms but until then government corruption is rampant and the accompanying political and economic chaos seem to have no end.;;;X
EVT_8002941_A;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;We fail at stabilizing the country;;;X
EVT_8002942_NAME;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;Administrative reform;;;X
EVT_8002942_DESC;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our administration, to provide better control, shuffle out incompetent and unfaithful officials and improve efficiency of our tax system.;;;X
EVT_8002942_A;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;;;X
EVT_8002942_B;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;;;X
EVT_8002943_NAME;Political reform;Political reform;Political reform;Political reform;Political reform;Political reform;Political reform;Political reform;;;X
EVT_8002943_DESC;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;To battle inherent instability of our corrupted regime, we should try to reform our political system and allow for better accountability of political leaders for their actions, more transparency and transition to modern democratic system of power, even if it means loss of overbearing influence of Kuomintang.;;;X
EVT_8002943_A;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;;;X
EVT_8002943_B;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;;;X
EVT_8002944_NAME;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;End of the martial law;;;X
EVT_8002944_DESC;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;China was under martial law for many years, first because of lengthy wars, now because of 'internal dissent', sometimes real but often somewhat exaggerated, to provide the ruling party with more tools of control over the nation. To complete transition into peaceful society, we should consider declaring martial law over, even if battling communist insurgents becomes then a bit harder.;;;X
EVT_8002944_A;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;;;X
EVT_8002944_B;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;;;X
EVT_8002945_NAME;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;Reforming the Petitioning Law;;;X
EVT_8002945_DESC;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;Petitioning (also known as letters and calls, correspondence and reception) is the traditional Chinese administrative system for hearing complaints and grievances from individuals. Its roots can be traced to imperial times, but currently it is still often used way for individuals to file a complaint about actions of local authorities with hope that some higher authority up to, and including, the State Bureau for Letters and Visits, leads to overturning that decision.\n\nIt is clear that despite its enduring nature and political support, the system has never been an effective mechanism for dealing with the complaints brought to it and there are reports of numerous cases of purposeful hindrance of petitioning process. Shall we introduce more transparent and effective system of appeals, to ensure our citizens that the judicial system is really working?;;;X
EVT_8002945_A;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;;;X
EVT_8002945_B;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;;;X
EVT_8002946_NAME;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;Land reform;;;X
EVT_8002946_DESC;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;Partially with the help of the China Aid Act of 1948 and the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, the Republic of China government could implement a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program. They redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries.;;;X
EVT_8002946_A;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;Carry out the reform;;;X
EVT_8002946_B;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;Let's wait;;;X
EVT_8002947_NAME;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;;;X
EVT_8002947_DESC;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;End of instabilities;;;X
EVT_8002947_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002948_NAME;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;End of instability in China;;;X
EVT_8002948_DESC;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;Republic of China, even after winning the struggle against the hardest internal opponent in the civil war, was marred by many acute problems. Corruption was rampant, social structure was anachronistic and general efficiency of the state was poor, and most people did not believe in justice and equality in front of the state. Times have passed though, reforms were introduced and finally, it seems, that China may enter the road of prosperity and stability.;;;X
EVT_8002948_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8002950_NAME;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;Liberation of Vietnam;;;X
EVT_8002950_DESC;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;For centuries Vietnam was a part of Chinese sphere of interests and successive Chinese dynasties had their say in Vietnamese politics from time to time. Lately, we managed to take these lands out of hands of our foes and the world expects that we reinstitute free and independent Vietnamese state, again.;;;X
EVT_8002950_A;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;Vietnam will be free;;;X
EVT_8002950_B;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;We will remain there for the time being;;;X
EVT_8002951_NAME;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;Repayment of loans;;;X
EVT_8002951_DESC;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;During difficult days of the civil war, United States made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, we are expected to repay at least some portion of our debts to our American ally. Shall we do it now or will we postpone repayment under some excuse, until the situation is more stable?;;;X
EVT_8002951_A;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;Repay what we owe;;;X
EVT_8002951_B;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;We must fund communist anti-insurgency first;;;X
EVT_8002952_NAME;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;China clears its debts;;;X
EVT_8002952_DESC;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;During difficult days of the Chinese Civil War, we made immense contribution to Nationalist war effort in loans and military equipment. Now, after the war is over, Chiang Kai-shek remembered his promise and repaid significant portion of the debt. As we received money and see that Chiang's grasp of the country is strengthening each day, we may consider this investment one of the best we could make.;;;X
EVT_8002952_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8002953_NAME;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;Program of economic development;;;X
EVT_8002953_DESC;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is low level of conomic development, that we may try to amend with investments into heavy industry and infrastructure.;;;X
EVT_8002953_A;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;;;X
EVT_8002953_B;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;;;X
EVT_8002954_NAME;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;Promotion of literacy;;;X
EVT_8002954_DESC;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;Now, as the civil war is over and our country entered the period of stable development, we may start funding programs of national development, centered around most important issues. One of this problems is high level of illiteracy, especially in rural areas, which confines large part of our nation to most menial of jobs.;;;X
EVT_8002954_A;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;Provide the funds;;;X
EVT_8002954_B;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;It's not a key issue;;;X
EVT_8003110_NAME;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;Abdication of Norodom Sihanouk;;;X
EVT_8003110_DESC;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;In 1955 elections Sihanouk was more determined than ever to defeat the Democrats. On March 2, 1955, he announced his abdication in favor of his father, Norodom Suramarit. Assuming the title of samdech (prince), Sihanouk explained that this action was necessary in order to give him a free hand to engage in politics.;;;X
EVT_8003110_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003114_NAME;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;Death of Norodom Suramarit;;;X
EVT_8003114_DESC;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;Following his father's death in 1960, Norodom Sihanouk won general election as head of state, but received the title of prince rather than King. Later, in 1963, he made a change in the constitution that made him head of state for life. While he was not officially King, he had created a constitutional office for himself that was exactly equal to that of the former kingship.;;;X
EVT_8003114_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003202_NAME;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;Colombian Elections of 1950;;;X
EVT_8003202_DESC;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;During La Violencia, several members of the Colombian Liberal Party and of the Colombian Communist Party organized self-defense groups and guerrilla units, which fought both against those of the Colombian Conservative Party and amongst each other throughout the countryside. At the peak of this period, Leftist candidate decided not to pursue presidency as a measure of protest.;;;X
EVT_8003202_A;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;There is only one candidate;;;X
EVT_8003202_B;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;Press for leftist option;;;X
EVT_8003203_NAME;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;Designado a la Presidencia;;;X
EVT_8003203_DESC;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;On October 31, Congress is notified of the intentions of president Laureano Gómez to request leave of absence due to his illness. Persuaded by impassionate appeal of the ill president, they elected Urdaneta as interim office holder.;;;X
EVT_8003203_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003204_NAME;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;Pinilla's coup;;;X
EVT_8003204_DESC;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;By June 1953, President Laureano Gómez had recovered and was feeling better, and decided to regain control of the presidency. Within hours General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla presented himself before Urdaneta and stated: 'In the name of the Army's high command, I have the charge to express to your Excellency that we are here to request that you continue acting as President of Colombia'. With Urdaneta faltering, he eventually took the post for himself.;;;X
EVT_8003204_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003308_NAME;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;Nous ne sommes plus vos singes;;;X
EVT_8003308_DESC;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;'We are no longer your monkeys' - according to some sources were the words uttered by Lumumba to King of the Belgians on the day of independence. Problems with Belgian heritage, especially mutinous foreign officer corps in the army, marred the first years of freedom.;;;X
EVT_8003308_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003309_NAME;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003309_DESC;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;Large area of Congo proved to be impossible to be controlled by ineffective army. Soon, the Western-leaning government will remain in control of the western parts of the Congo Basin, while the rest of the country will remain divided among Soviet supporters (Antoine Gizenga in Stanleyville), splinter state of South Kasai (Albert Kalonji) and Katanga, supported by Belgian businessman (Moise Tshombe).;;;X
EVT_8003309_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003310_NAME;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003310_DESC;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;;;X
EVT_8003310_A;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;;;X
EVT_8003310_B;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;;;X
EVT_8003311_NAME;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;Soviets meddle in Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003311_DESC;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;Eastern breakaway government in Stanleyville was supported by Soviet Union and other Communist countries, seeing a chance for it to gain control over whole country and for Soviet influence to win strong foothold in Africa.;;;X
EVT_8003311_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003312_NAME;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;Fueling Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003312_DESC;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;;;X
EVT_8003312_A;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;Provide support;;;X
EVT_8003312_B;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;Don't meddle;;;X
EVT_8003313_NAME;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;Belgians meddle in Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003313_DESC;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;Belgian businessmen wanted to retain their control over economics of Congo even after its independence. Especially the southern state of Katanga, rich in raw materials, seemed to be an interesting target of indirect influence.;;;X
EVT_8003313_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003314_NAME;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;Resolving Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003314_DESC;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;On 5 September 1960, state president Joseph Kasavubu dismissed prime minister Patrice Lumumba. In his place, he appointed Joseph Ileo, a respected moderate. Lumumba refused to accept his dismissal, backed by a parliamentary vote of confidence. UN actions halted the Soviet supported airlift of Congolese troops to Kasai and helped to dissolve Lumumba's government.;;;X
EVT_8003314_A;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;Oust Lumumba;;;X
EVT_8003314_B;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;Let Lumumba stay in power;;;X
EVT_8003315_NAME;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;Death of Patrice Lumumba;;;X
EVT_8003315_DESC;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;On September 12, forces loyal to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Joseph Mobutu, placed Lumumba under house arrest at the prime minister's residence. On September 14, with CIA help, Mobutu seized power and declared Lumumba and Kasavubu 'neutralised' but left the latter in office. Soon Lumumba left arrest and was travelling through the country. Being a threat to Mobutu, he was taken captive and killed by Katangan forces in January 1961.;;;X
EVT_8003315_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003316_NAME;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;Bringing back stability;;;X
EVT_8003316_DESC;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;Year 1961 brought many attempts to define the political shape of Congo and the level of autonomy of local leaders. At least the central government, in chaos after Lumumba's death, was to be stabilized by the new prime minister, Cyrille Adoula.;;;X
EVT_8003316_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003317_NAME;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;Death of Dag Hammarskjöld;;;X
EVT_8003317_DESC;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;Meant to return control over whole Congo to the central government, Operation Morthor was an initiative of United Nations to subjugate Katanga. Military and diplomatic fiasco prompted UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally travel to Congo in order to negotiate peace. He was killed in a plane crash due to undetermined causes, the only UN Secretary General to die in office.;;;X
EVT_8003317_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003318_NAME;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;Ending Congo Crisis;;;X
EVT_8003318_DESC;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;December 1961 and January 1962 witnessed reconquering of Eastern provinces controlled by Communist government, as well as South Kasai.;;;X
EVT_8003318_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003319_NAME;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;Operation Grand Slam;;;X
EVT_8003319_DESC;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;Throughout 1962, Tshombe maintained the independence of Katanga. In December 1962 the UN launched 'Operation Grand Slam' on Katanga's political and military infrastructure. This proved to be a decisive attack and by January, 1963 Elizabethville was under full UN control. This ended the secession of Katanga.;;;X
EVT_8003319_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003320_NAME;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;Losing to Communists;;;X
EVT_8003320_DESC;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;Despite UN and American support, the central government failed to retain control over the capital city, not mentioning the rest of the country. Supporters of radical left take control over the country.;;;X
EVT_8003320_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003402_NAME;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;Costa Rican Civil War;;;X
EVT_8003402_DESC;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;Through fraud, former President Calderon supporters prevented and invalidated the March 1, 1948, presidential election in which Otilio Ulate had defeated Calderon in his second term bid. In March-April 1948, the protests over the election results mushroomed into armed conflict, then into revolution. Figueres defeated Communist-led guerrillas and the Costa Rican Army, which had joined forces with President Picado.;;;X
EVT_8003402_A;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;Fight for democracy;;;X
EVT_8003402_B;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;Rafael Calderon stays in power;;;X
EVT_8003403_NAME;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;Ferrer steps down;;;X
EVT_8003403_DESC;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;As promised, after enacting his reforms Jose Figueres Ferrer stepped down from the office of the president.;;;X
EVT_8003403_A;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;;;X
EVT_8003403_B;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;It's military government after all!;;;X
EVT_8003407_NAME;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;Abolishment of the Army;;;X
EVT_8003407_DESC;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;After the civil war Figueres became President at the head of a provisional junta known as the 'Junta Fundadora' (Founding Council) that held power for 18 months. During that he abolished the army saying: 'The future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police, yes, because people are imperfect.' Ever since, Costa Rica has had no army and has maintained a 7,500-member national police force for a population of over four million.;;;X
EVT_8003407_A;It is possible!;It is possible!;It is possible!;It is possible!;It is possible!;It is possible!;It is possible!;It is possible!;;;X
EVT_8003407_B;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;Are you mad?;;;X
EVT_8003808_NAME;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;Castro comes to power;;;X
EVT_8003808_DESC;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;Whilst still in the Sierra Maestra, Castro had made it clear that the lawyer Manuel Urrutia Lleó should be the new Cuban president and leader of the provisional government. An established figure, Urrutia had defended several revolutionaries, including members of the MR-26-7, in court during the Batista administration, and it was for this reason that Castro believed he would make a good leader, being both connected to the Cuban establishment and favourable to the revolutionary cause.\n\nCastro himself arrived in Havana to cheering crowds and assumed the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces on January 8 and would shortly thereafter declare that 'power does not interest me, and I will not take it.' On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba. President Manuel Urrutia Lleó wanted to restore elections, but Castro opposed free elections. Castro's slogan was 'Revolution first, elections later'.;;;X
EVT_8003808_A;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;Viva la Revolucion!;;;X
EVT_8003810_NAME;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;Attack on Moncada Barracks;;;X
EVT_8003810_DESC;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;On 26 July 1953 Castro, acting against Batista's regime, led a historic attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba, but failed. Many soldiers were killed by Castro's forces. However, Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Later he was released by the Batista government in 1956, when amnesty was given to many political prisoners, and left for Mexico.;;;X
EVT_8003810_A;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;;;X
EVT_8003810_B;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;;;X
EVT_8003811_NAME;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;Rebellion of Castro;;;X
EVT_8003811_DESC;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;Central government of Batista, unable to contain Castro, is losing ground to revolters. More and more villages and rural towns show sympathy and provide support to those troublemakers. Still, there is hope that we somehow outmaneuver partisans and catch Castro dead or alive which should bring insurgency to quick end.;;;X
EVT_8003811_A;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;The rebellion rages on;;;X
EVT_8003811_B;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;Havana falls to insurgents!;;;X
EVT_8003811_C;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;We ambushed and killed Castro!;;;X
EVT_8003812_NAME;Castro fails;Castro fails;Castro fails;Castro fails;Castro fails;Castro fails;Castro fails;Castro fails;;;X
EVT_8003812_DESC;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;Today, Fidel Castro was caught with a band of his closest aides, to the much delight of Batista. With so many problems attributed to him, for sure he won't see daylight again and the raging revolt on the island will gradually die down.;;;X
EVT_8003812_A;Hooray;Hooray;Hooray;Hooray;Hooray;Hooray;Hooray;Hooray;;;X
EVT_8003813_NAME;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;Granma Landing;;;X
EVT_8003813_DESC;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;Castro led a group of 82 men that sailed to Cuba on board the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island in December 1956. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais of the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces. Castro managed to escape to the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12-17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, and began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.;;;X
EVT_8003813_A;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;The attack succeeds;;;X
EVT_8003813_B;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;The attack fails;;;X
EVT_8003814_NAME;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;Cuba at crossroads;;;X
EVT_8003814_DESC;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;United States were very quick to recognize Castro government and tried to seek ways to keep Cuba within American sphere of influence. However, Castro's policies began to quickly radicalize, and to American astonishment, he turned out to be staunch opponent of American presence in Cuba. Soviet Union seemed a more natural ally.;;;X
EVT_8003814_A;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;Take strict stance against USA;;;X
EVT_8003814_B;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;Ease the revolutionary spirit;;;X
EVT_8003815_NAME;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;Bay of Pigs Invasion;;;X
EVT_8003815_DESC;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;In April 1960, the CIA began to recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the Miami area. Until July 1960, assessment and training was carried out on Useppa Island and at various other facilities in South Florida, such as Homestead AFB. They were trained to perform an amphibious assault on Cuba and drive out communist government from the island.;;;X
EVT_8003815_A;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;Carry out the mission;;;X
EVT_8003815_B;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;Cuba is lost for good;;;X
EVT_8003817_NAME;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;;;X
EVT_8003817_DESC;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of Cuban exiles to invade southern Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan was launched in April 1961, less than three months after John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the exile combatants in three days.;;;X
EVT_8003817_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003818_NAME;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;Bay of Pigs Invasion fails;;;X
EVT_8003818_DESC;The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';The failed invasion severely embarrassed the Kennedy Administration, and made Castro wary of future US intervention in Cuba. On 21 April, in a State Department press conference, President Kennedy said: 'There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government.'\n\nIn August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note to Kennedy via Richard N. Goodwin, a secretary of the White House. It said: 'Thanks for Playa Girón. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever.';;;X
EVT_8003818_A;Shame on us;Shame on us;Shame on us;Shame on us;Shame on us;Shame on us;Shame on us;Shame on us;;;X
EVT_8003819_NAME;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;;;X
EVT_8003819_DESC;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;The attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, launched in April 1961, had profound effect and communist forces folded easily. The route to Havana is open and rule of Castro ends sooner than anyone expected.;;;X
EVT_8003819_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003820_NAME;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;Bay of Pigs Invasion succeeds;;;X
EVT_8003820_DESC;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;In spite of imperfections of the original plan, the Bay of Pigs invasion succeeded and Castro's young regime was swept away. Batista once again rides the street of Havana, this time even more dependent on us.;;;X
EVT_8003820_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003821_NAME;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;Castro's visit in the USA;;;X
EVT_8003821_DESC;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;On February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, accepting the position on the condition that the Prime Minister’s powers be increased. Between 15 and 26 April Castro visited the U.S. with a delegation of representatives, hiring a public relations firm for a charm offensive and presenting himself as a 'man of the people'. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower avoided meeting Castro, who instead met Vice President Richard Nixon, a man Castro instantly disliked. Proceeding to Canada, Trinidad, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, Castro attended an economic conference in Buenos Aires, unsuccessfully proposing a $30 billion U.S.-funded 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America.;;;X
EVT_8003821_A;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;Carry out charm offensive;;;X
EVT_8003821_B;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;Preach Marxism;;;X
EVT_8003822_NAME;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;First Agrarian Reform;;;X
EVT_8003822_DESC;"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";"Appointing himself president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria - INRA), on 17 May 1959, Castro signed into law the First Agrarian Reform, limiting landholdings to 993 acres (4.02 km2) per owner and forbidding further foreign land-ownership. Large land-holdings were broken up and redistributed; an estimated 200,000 peasants received title deeds. To Castro, this was an important step, breaking the control of the landowning class over Cuba’s agriculture; popular among the working class, it alienated many middle-class supporters. Castro appointed himself president of the National Tourist Industry, introducing unsuccessful measures to encourage African-American tourists to visit, advertising it as a tropical paradise free of racial discrimination. Changes to state wages were implemented; judges and politicians had their pay reduced while low-level civil servants saw theirs raised. In March 1959, Castro ordered rents for those who paid less than $100 a month halved, with measures implemented to increase the Cuban people’s purchasing powers; productivity decreased and the country’s financial reserves were drained within two years.";;;X
EVT_8003822_A;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;Land to the masses;;;X
EVT_8003822_B;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;Soothe landowners;;;X
EVT_8003823_NAME;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;Fall of Urrutia;;;X
EVT_8003823_DESC;"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";"Although refusing to categorize his regime as socialist and repeatedly denying being a communist, Castro appointed Marxists to senior government and military positions; most notably Che Guevara became Governor of the Central Bank and then Minister of Industries. Appalled, Air Force commander Pedro Luis Díaz Lanz defected to the U.S. Although President Urrutia denounced the defection, he publicly expressed concern with the rising influence of Marxism. Angered, Castro announced his resignation as Prime Minister, blaming Urrutia for complicating government with his ""fevered anti-Communism"". Over 500,000 Castro-supporters surrounded the Presidential Palace demanding Urrutia’s resignation, which was duly received. On July 23, Castro resumed his Premiership and appointed the Marxist Osvaldo Dorticós as the new President.";;;X
EVT_8003823_A;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;He's fervent anti-communist!;;;X
EVT_8003823_B;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;We need moderates like him;;;X
EVT_8003824_NAME;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;General UN Assembly of 1960;;;X
EVT_8003824_DESC;"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";"In September 1960, Castro flew to New York City for the General Assembly of the United Nations. Offended by the attitude of the elite Shelburne Hotel, he and his entourage stayed at the cheap, run-down Hotel Theresa in the impoverished area of Harlem, meeting with journalists and anti-establishment figures like Malcolm X. Also visited by the Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, the two leaders publicly highlighted the poverty faced by U.S. citizens in areas like Harlem; Castro described New York as a 'city of persecution' against black and poor Americans. Relations between Castro and Khrushchev were warm; they led the applause to one another's speeches at the General Assembly. Although Castro publicly denied being a socialist, Khrushchev informed his entourage that the Cuban would become 'a beacon of Socialism in Latin America.' Subsequently visited by four other socialists, Polish First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka, Bulgarian Chairman Todor Zhivkov, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Indian Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee organized an evening’s reception for Castro, attended by Allen Ginsburg, Langston Hughes, C. Wright Mills and I.F. Stone.";;;X
EVT_8003824_A;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;Stay at Shelburne Hotel;;;X
EVT_8003824_B;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;Visit Hotel Theresa;;;X
EVT_8003825_NAME;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;Consolidating political power;;;X
EVT_8003825_DESC;"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";"Castro feared a U.S.-backed coup, in 1959 spending $120 million on Soviet, French and Belgian weaponry. With the intent of constructing the largest army in Latin America, by early 1960 the government had doubled the size of the Cuban armed forces. Fearing counter-revolutionary elements in the army, the government created a People's Militia to arm citizens favorable to the revolution, training at least 50,000 supporters in combat techniques. In September 1960, they created the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), a nationwide civilian organization who implemented neighborhood spying to weed out 'counter-revolutionary' activities and who could support the army in the case of invasion; they also organized health and education campaigns, and were a conduit for public complaints. Eventually, 80 percent of Cuba's population would be involved in the CDR. Castro proclaimed the new administration a direct democracy, in which the Cuban populace could assemble en masse at demonstrations and express their democratic will. As a result, he rejected the need for elections, claiming that representative democratic systems served the interests of socio-economic elites. In contrast, critics condemned the new regime as un-democratic, with U.S. Secretary of State Christian Herter announcing that Cuba was adopting the Soviet model of communist rule, with a one-party state, government control of trade unions, suppression of civil liberties and the absence of freedom of speech and press.";;;X
EVT_8003825_A;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;Unite under the red banner!;;;X
EVT_8003825_B;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;Strength in plurality;;;X
EVT_8003826_NAME;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;Nationalization of refineries;;;X
EVT_8003826_DESC;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;Expressing contempt for the U.S., Castro shared the ideological views of the USSR, establishing relations with several Marxist-Leninist states. Meeting with Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas Mikoyan, Castro agreed to provide the USSR with sugar, fruit, fibers, and hides, in return for crude oil, fertilizers, industrial goods, and a $100 million loan. Cuba’s government ordered the country's refineries – then controlled by the U.S. corporations Shell, Esso and Standard Oil – to process Soviet oil, but under pressure from the U.S. government, they refused. Castro responded by expropriating and nationalizing the refineries. In retaliation, the U.S. cancelled its import of Cuban sugar, provoking Castro to nationalize most U.S.-owned assets on the island, including banks and sugar mills.;;;X
EVT_8003826_A;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;We will lay hands on our black gold;;;X
EVT_8003826_B;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;Offer concessions;;;X
EVT_8003830_NAME;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;Cuba at Crossroads;;;X
EVT_8003830_DESC;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;The United States recognized the Castro government on 7 January 1959, six days after Batista fled Cuba. President Eisenhower sent a new ambassador, Philip Bonsal, to replace Earl T. Smith, who had been close to Batista. The Eisenhower administration, in agreement with the American media and Congress, did this with the assumption that 'Cuba [would] remain in the U.S. sphere of influence'. If Castro accepted these parameters, he would be allowed to stay in power. Otherwise he would be overthrown.\n\nHistorically,among the opponents of Batista there were many who wanted to accommodate the United States. However, Castro belonged to a faction who, to the astonishment of Eisenhower and many North Americans, was repulsed by U.S. domination and paternalism. Castro did not forgive the U.S. supply of arms to Batista during the revolution. On 5 June 1958, at the height of the revolution, he had written: 'The Americans are going to pay dearly for what they are doing. When the war is over, I’ll start a much longer and bigger war of my own: the war I’m going to fight against them. That will be my true destiny'. Thus, Castro had no intention to bow to the United States. 'Even though he did not have a clear blueprint of the Cuba he wanted to create, Castro dreamed of a sweeping revolution that would uproot his country's oppressive socioeconomic structure and of a Cuba that would be free of the United States'.;;;X
EVT_8003830_A;We admire USA;We admire USA;We admire USA;We admire USA;We admire USA;We admire USA;We admire USA;We admire USA;;;X
EVT_8003830_B;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;We admire USSR;;;X
EVT_8003830_C;We go third way;We go third way;We go third way;We go third way;We go third way;We go third way;We go third way;We go third way;;;X
EVT_8003831_NAME;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;American stance on Castro and Cuba;;;X
EVT_8003831_DESC;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;Despite leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates, post-revolution Cuba retained its cordial relations with us, fearing potential backlash. Shall we take advantage of this blatant weakness and treat Cuba as our protectorate, or should we establish political and economic ties as two equal states?;;;X
EVT_8003831_A;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;Cuba will be our playground;;;X
EVT_8003831_B;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;Give them fair deal;;;X
EVT_8003832_NAME;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;Soviet stance on Castro and Cuba;;;X
EVT_8003832_DESC;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;Due to leftist sympathies of Fidel Castro and his close associates and American opposition towards change of rule on the island, post-revolution Cuba aim to establish its cordial relations with us, to counter American influence. Shall we take advantage of this opportunity to gain foothold in the Western Hemisphere, or is Cuba too exotic and distant for our political ties to hold?;;;X
EVT_8003832_A;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;Establish cordial relations;;;X
EVT_8003832_B;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;It's too far from Moscow;;;X
EVT_8003833_NAME;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;Protectorate of Cuba;;;X
EVT_8003833_DESC;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;American administration decided to put pressure on us and demanded a lot of concessions to let Castro remain at power. What else could we expect from the neighboring superpower?;;;X
EVT_8003833_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003834_NAME;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;Democratic and free Republic of Cuba;;;X
EVT_8003834_DESC;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;American administration decided to play fair and accepted Castro remaining at power, vowing to let American companies return to post-revolution island with with new investments.;;;X
EVT_8003834_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003835_NAME;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;Western jewel of the socialist world;;;X
EVT_8003835_DESC;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;USSR accepted Castro's overtures and provided far-reaching political support and economic help to the nascent socialist republic. The socialist world gained a fervent supported at the gates of the enemy and long-lasting thankfulness of the Cuban people!;;;X
EVT_8003835_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8003836_NAME;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;Betrayal of the socialist world;;;X
EVT_8003836_DESC;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;USSR brushed off Castro's overtures, finding support for Cuba too costly and potential return dubious at best. Cuban revolution is at prey of Americans and voices of contempt can be heard among all social strata of the island!;;;X
EVT_8003836_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004305_NAME;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;Establishment of Stasi;;;X
EVT_8004305_DESC;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi (Staatssicherheit, literally State Security), was the official state security service of East Germany. The MfS was headquartered in East Berlin, with an extensive complex in Berlin-Lichtenberg and several smaller facilities throughout the city. It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world. The MfS motto was 'Schild und Schwert der Partei' (Shield and Sword of the Party), that is the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED).;;;X
EVT_8004305_A;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;Let's rule the state of spies;;;X
EVT_8004306_NAME;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;East German Uprising of 1953;;;X
EVT_8004306_DESC;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;The Uprising of 1953 in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers. On June 16, 300 East Berlin construction workers went on strike after their superiors announced a pay cut if they didn't meet their work quota. Their numbers quickly swelled and a general strike and protests were called for the next day. The West Berlin-based Radio in the American Sector reported the Berlin events and thus probably helped to incite the uprising in other parts of East Germany. It turned into a widespread anti-Stalinist uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day.\n\nThe uprising in Berlin was violently suppressed by tanks of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany and the Volkspolizei. In spite of the intervention of Soviet troops, the wave of strikes and protests was not easily brought under control. Even after June 17, there were demonstrations in more than 500 towns and villages.\n\nIt is still unclear how many people died during the uprising or were sentenced to death in the aftermath. The number of known victims is 55.;;;X
EVT_8004306_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004307_NAME;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;Construction of the Berlin Wall;;;X
EVT_8004307_DESC;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;The Berlin Wall was a barrier constructed by the German Democratic Republic starting on 13 August 1961, that completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the 'death strip') that contained anti-vehicle trenches, 'fakir beds' and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the 'will of the people' in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that marked Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.\n\nAlong with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB) that demarcated the border between East and West Germany, both borders came to symbolize the 'Iron Curtain' that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.\n\nBefore the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.;;;X
EVT_8004307_A;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;Guard against fascists;;;X
EVT_8004308_NAME;New Economic System;New Economic System;New Economic System;New Economic System;New Economic System;New Economic System;New Economic System;New Economic System;;;X
EVT_8004308_DESC;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;The New Economic System was an economic policy that was implemented by the ruling Socialist Unity Party in 1963. Its purpose was to replace the system of Five Year Plans which had been used to run the GDR's economy from 1951 onwards. The System was introduced by Walter Ulbricht in order to give centralised control to the economy to be run in as efficient a manner as possible.;;;X
EVT_8004308_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004309_NAME;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;Treaty of Zgorzelec;;;X
EVT_8004309_DESC;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;The Treaty of Zgorzelec (Full title: The Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Established and the Existing Polish-German State Frontier, also known as the Treaty of Görlitz) between the Republic of Poland and East Germany (GDR) was signed on 6 July 1950 in Polish Zgorzelec, until 1945 the eastern part of the divided city of Görlitz.\n\nThe agreement was signed under Soviet pressure by Otto Grotewohl, prime minister of the provisional government of the GDR (East Germany) and Polish premier Józef Cyrankiewicz. It recognized the Oder-Neisse line implemented by the 1945 Potsdam Agreement as the border between the two states. The terms referred to the 'defined and existing border' from the Baltic Sea west of Œwinoujœcie - however without mentioning Szczecin - along the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers to the Czechoslovak border. Thereby the East German government also accepted the division of Küstrin, Frankfurt (Oder), Guben and Görlitz.;;;X
EVT_8004309_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004310_NAME;Brain drain;Brain drain;Brain drain;Brain drain;Brain drain;Brain drain;Brain drain;Brain drain;;;X
EVT_8004310_DESC;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;With the closing of the inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible then because it was administered by all four occupying powers. Accordingly, Berlin became the main route by which East Germans left for the West.\n\nThose caught trying to leave East Berlin were subjected to heavy penalties, but with no physical barrier and subway train access still available to West Berlin, such measures were ineffective. The Berlin sector border was essentially a 'loophole' through which Eastern Bloc citizens could still escape. The 3.5 million East Germans who had left by 1961 totalled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population.\n\nThe emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the 'brain drain' feared by officials in East Germany. By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61 percent of its population of working age, compared to 70.5 percent before the war. The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.\n\nThe brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.;;;X
EVT_8004310_A;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;It's becoming empty here;;;X
EVT_8004311_NAME;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;Berlin is divided;;;X
EVT_8004311_DESC;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;After the end of the war in Europe in 1945, Berlin received large numbers of refugees from the Eastern provinces. The victorious powers divided the city into four sectors, analogous to the occupation zones into which Germany was divided. The sectors of the Western Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) formed West Berlin, while the Soviet sector formed East Berlin.\n\nEventually, Federal Republic of Germany was founded in West Germany and eventually included all of the American, British, and French zones, excluding those three countries' zones in Berlin, while the Marxist-Leninist German Democratic Republic was proclaimed in East Germany. West Berlin officially remained an occupied city, but as a corpus separatum it politically was very closely aligned with Federal Republic of Germany despite Berlin's geographic location within East Germany. West Berlin issued its own postage stamps, which were often the same as West German postage stamps but with the additional word 'Berlin' added. Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British, and French airlines.;;;X
EVT_8004311_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004312_NAME;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;Berlin is no longer divided;;;X
EVT_8004312_DESC;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;After years of occupation by different Allied powers, Berlin may prosper once again united under one rule.;;;X
EVT_8004312_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004402_NAME;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;Death of Christian X;;;X
EVT_8004402_DESC;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;On his death in Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, in 1947, Christian X was interred along other members of the Danish royal family in Roskilde Cathedral near Copenhagen. Although he had been behind the politics of Erik Scavenius, a cloth armband of the type worn by members of the Danish resistance movement was placed on his coffin at castrum doloris.\n\nChristian's son, Frederick IX, was proclaimed king from the balcony of Christiansborg Palace by Prime Minister Knud Kristensen.\n\nFrederick's reign saw great change. During these years, Danish society shook off the restrictions of an agricultural society and developed a welfare state. And, as a consequence of the booming economy of the 1960s, women entered the labour market. In other words, Denmark became a modern country, which meant new demands on the monarchy.;;;X
EVT_8004402_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004506_NAME;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;Adenauer steps down;;;X
EVT_8004506_DESC;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;Adenauer managed to remain in office for almost another year, but the Spiegel affair increased the pressure he was under to fulfill his promise to resign before the end of the term. Adenauer was not on good terms with his economics minister Ludwig Erhard and tried to block him from the chancellorship. Adenauer failed, and in October 1963 he turned the office over to Erhard. He did remain chairman of the CDU until his resignation in December 1966.;;;X
EVT_8004506_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004507_NAME;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;Spiegel Affair;;;X
EVT_8004507_DESC;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;The main point of the scandal was when when Der Spiegel, published an article called 'Bedingt abwehrbereit' ('prepared for defense to limited extent'), which uncovered the sorry state of the Bundeswehr facing the communist threat from the east. The magazine's office was seized shortly and people responsible accused of treason. Eventually, they were acquitted of charges and the whole affair formed foundations under German democratic system and freedom of press.;;;X
EVT_8004507_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004510_NAME;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;;;X
EVT_8004510_DESC;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;;;X
EVT_8004510_A;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;We manage to get away;;;X
EVT_8004510_B;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;Soviet fighters are closing on us!;;;X
EVT_8004511_NAME;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;;;X
EVT_8004511_DESC;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.\n\nIt was only when reaching a position north of Leipzig, deep within East German air space, that Pfefferkorn sent a Mayday signal, which was picked up, to their surprise, by the French-controlled airport at Tegel in West Berlin, which gave them permission to land. By the time they were noticed, the pair was being unsuccessfully chased by a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft. A corporal of the USAF, present in the Tempelhof control tower, ordered the two pilots not to turn around and face the pursuing fighter planes but instead to head for the Tegel airport as it had a longer runway than Tempelhof and was more suitable for jets.;;;X
EVT_8004511_A;Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);Shoot down both machines! (very small chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8004511_B;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;Escort them back to the border;;;X
EVT_8004512_NAME;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;F-84 Thunderstreak incident;;;X
EVT_8004512_DESC;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;On 14 September 1961, under the code name Checkmate, the NATO high command mobilised the air forces of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany for the purpose of an exercise. As part of this exercise, the Jagdbombers of Jagdbombergeschwader (JaBoG) 32, based at Lechfeld Airbase, south of Augsburg, were to fly a triangular route from Würzburg to Laon and then to Memmingen. Two F-84 fighter-bombers lost their course in the process of flying this route, with the compass on one plane misreading by between 40 and 60 degrees. Additionally, a strong westerly wind was greater in strength than had been forecast. On their way from Würzburg to Laon, the two pilots had become so disoriented that they mistook Li?ge in Belgium for Reims in France. Shortly after, the pair were picked up by NATO radar stations near Warburg, in southern Westphalia, heading east, in the direction of Königs Wusterhausen, south of Berlin. The two pilots missed a radio call from the radar stations advising them to turn around because they were talking to each other, trying to establish their location.;;;X
EVT_8004512_A;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;Issue a protest;;;X
EVT_8004512_B;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;Apologize for transgression;;;X
EVT_8004512_C;Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);Escalate into war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8004606_NAME;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;Juan Bosch comes to power;;;X
EVT_8004606_DESC;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;After 23 years in exile, Juan Bosch returned to his homeland when Trujillo was assassinated on May 30, 1961. His presence in the national political life, as the Dominican Revolutionary Party presidential candidate, was a fresh change for the Dominicans. His manner of speaking, direct and simple, especially when addressing the lowest classes, appealed the farmers as much as the people from the cities. Immediately he was accused by the Church and by conservatives of being a communist, but in the electoral match of December 20, 1962, Bosch obtained a sweeping triumph over his main oppositor Viriato Fiallo of the National Civic Union, in what is acknowledged to be the first free election in the country's history.\n\nBosch immediately launched a deep restructuring of the country. On April 29, he promulgated a new liberal constitution. The new document granted the people freedoms they had never known. Among other things, it declared specific labour rights, and mentioned unions, pregnant women, homeless people, the family, rights for the child and the young, for the farmers, and for illegitimate children.;;;X
EVT_8004606_A;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;Let him rule!;;;X
EVT_8004606_B;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;Oppose his return;;;X
EVT_8004607_NAME;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;Triumvirate coup;;;X
EVT_8004607_DESC;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;During his short tenure, Bosch faced powerful enemies. He moved to break up latifundia, drawing the ire of landowners. The Roman Catholic Church thought Bosch was trying to oversecularize the country. Industrialists did not like the new Constitution's guarantees for the working class. The military, who previously enjoyed free rein, felt Bosch put them on too short a leash. In addition, the United States was skeptical of even a hint of left-leaning politics in the Caribbean after Fidel Castro openly declared himself a Communist.\n\nOn September 25, 1963, after only seven months in office, Bosch was overthrown in a coup led by Colonel Elías Wessin and replaced by a three-man military junta. Bosch went back to exile in Puerto Rico.;;;X
EVT_8004607_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004608_NAME;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;Assassination of Rafael Trujillo;;;X
EVT_8004608_DESC;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, nicknamed El Jefe, ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961. He officially served as president from 1930 to 1938 and again from 1942 to 1952, otherwise ruling as an unelected military strongman. His 30 years in power, to Dominicans known as the Trujillo Era, is considered one of the bloodiest ever in the Americas, as well as a time of a classic personality cult, when monuments to Trujillo were in abundance. It has been estimated that Trujillo's rule was responsible for the death of more than 50,000 people, including 20,000 to 30,000 in the infamous Parsley Massacre.\n\nOn 30 May 1961 Trujillo was shot dead when his car was ambushed on a road outside the capital. According to his driver, Zacarias de la Cruz, Trujillo exited the car wounded in order to fire back at his attackers, and was subsequently and quickly riddled with bullets, and thus slain. His remains were interred in the Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise in Paris, France, and subsequently moved to the El Pardo cemetery near Madrid, Spain.;;;X
EVT_8004608_A;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;He met his bloody end;;;X
EVT_8004801_NAME;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;Deposition of Velasco;;;X
EVT_8004801_DESC;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;Rather than attending to the nation's economic problems, Velasco aggravated them by financing the dubious schemes of his associates. In August, when Velasco was ousted by his minister of defense, nobody rose to defend the man who, only three years earlier, had been hailed as the nation's savior.;;;X
EVT_8004801_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004802_NAME;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;Return of Constitutional Rule;;;X
EVT_8004802_DESC;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;Probably Galo Plaza's most important contribution to Ecuadorian political culture was his commitment to the principles and practices of democracy, something long forgotten in this country's recent history.;;;X
EVT_8004802_A;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;Let Gala Plazo lead reforms;;;X
EVT_8004802_B;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;Let rightist government form;;;X
EVT_8004806_NAME;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;Growing chaos;;;X
EVT_8004806_DESC;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;A series of new sales taxes imposed in order to raise desperately needed revenues then sparked a general strike and a series of demonstrations and riots in several major cities. Amid growing chaos, Velasco ordered the arrest of his vice president. Instead, Velasco was ousted by the military.;;;X
EVT_8004806_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004807_NAME;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;Rule of military junta;;;X
EVT_8004807_DESC;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;The brief appearance of a guerrilla movement in the coastal jungle and a rash of small-scale terrorist incidents left the government open to accusations of being either unable or unwilling to stop communist subversion. By early 1963, military conspiracy was again afoot and soon the hard-line anti-communist junta ruled the country.;;;X
EVT_8004807_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004906_NAME;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;Egyptian Revolution of 1952;;;X
EVT_8004906_DESC;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;The revolution was a military coup d'état by a group of young army officers who named themselves 'The Free Officers Movement' and was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk I. However, the movement had more political ambitions and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and establish a republic.;;;X
EVT_8004906_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8004907_NAME;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;Deposition of Fuad II;;;X
EVT_8004907_DESC;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;On 18 June, in line with its previous moves, the Revolution Command Council declared Egypt a republic, abolishing the monarchy, nominally ruled by the infant son of Farouk who had been reigning as King Fuad II.;;;X
EVT_8004907_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005004_NAME;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;Eden resigns from office;;;X
EVT_8005004_DESC;"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";"Suez damaged, in many eyes, Eden's reputation for statesmanship and led to a breakdown in his health. During his absence from London, his Chancellor Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler worked to manoeuvre him out of office. On the morning of the ceasefire Eisenhower agreed to meet with Eden to publicly resolve their differences. The Observer newspaper accused Eden of lying to parliament over the Suez Crisis, while right-wing Conservative MPs criticised his calling a ceasefire before the Canal was taken. In his final statement to the House of Commons as Prime Minister on 20 December 1956, Eden told MPs 'there was not foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt'; however, papers released in January 1987 showed the entire Cabinet had been informed of the plan on 23 October 1956.\n\nEden resigned on 9 January 1957, officially due to ill health. Churchill, who had released a statement supporting Eden's military response to the Suez Crisis, advised him to only give health concerns as the reason for his resignation. Macmillan, despite having himself been one of the architects of Suez, succeeded him as Prime Minister on the following day. Shortly afterwards Eden and his wife left England for a holiday in New Zealand.";;;X
EVT_8005004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005006_NAME;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;MacMillan resigns from office;;;X
EVT_8005006_DESC;The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority: 'Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.';;;X
EVT_8005006_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005007_NAME;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;Profumo Affair;;;X
EVT_8005007_DESC;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.;;;X
EVT_8005007_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005008_NAME;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;Death of George VI;;;X
EVT_8005008_DESC;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, exacerbated by his heavy smoking and subsequent development of lung cancer among other ailments including arteriosclerosis. Princess Elizabeth, the heiress presumptive, took on more royal duties as her father's health deteriorated. At the State Opening of Parliament in November 1951, the King's speech from the throne was read for him by the Lord Chancellor Lord Simonds. His 1951 Christmas broadcast was recorded in sections, and then edited together.\n\nOn 31 January 1952, despite advice from those close to him, he went to the airport to see off Princess Elizabeth, who was going on her tour of Australia via Kenya. On 6 February, George VI died from a coronary thrombosis in his sleep at Sandringham House in Norfolk, at the age of 56. His daughter Elizabeth flew back to the UK from Kenya as Elizabeth II. Because George died in his sleep during the night, his precise moment of death, and Elizabeth's accession, is not known.\n\nHis funeral took place at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 15 February 1952, after a lying in state at Westminster Hall.;;;X
EVT_8005008_A;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;The King is dead. Long live the Queen.;;;X
EVT_8005009_NAME;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;Coronation of Elizabeth II;;;X
EVT_8005009_DESC;"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";"The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time, and the coverage was instrumental in boosting the medium's popularity; the number of television licences in the United Kingdom doubled to 3 million, and many of the more than 20 million British viewers watched television for the first time in the homes of their friends or neighbours In North America, just under 100 million viewers watched recorded broadcasts. Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries: English Tudor rose, Scots thistle, Welsh leek, Irish shamrock, Australian wattle, Canadian maple leaf, New Zealand silver fern, South African protea, lotus flowers for India and Ceylon, and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute.";;;X
EVT_8005009_A;So help Her God;So help Her God;So help Her God;So help Her God;So help Her God;So help Her God;So help Her God;So help Her God;;;X
EVT_8005010_NAME;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;Olympic Games of 1948;;;X
EVT_8005010_DESC;"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";"The 1948 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XIV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event which was held in London, England, United Kingdom. After a 12-year hiatus because of World War II, these were the first Summer Olympics since the 1936 Games in Berlin. The 1940 Games had been scheduled for Tokyo, and then Helsinki; the 1944 Games had been provisionally planned for London. This was the second occasion that London had hosted the Olympic Games, the city had previously been the venue in 1908.\n\nThe event came to be known as the Austerity Games due to the economic climate and post-war rationing. No new venues were built for the games and athletes were housed in existing accommodation instead of an Olympic Village. A record 59 nations were represented by 4,104 athletes, 3,714 men and 390 women, in 19 sport disciplines. Because of their roles as aggressors in World War II Germany and Japan were not invited to participate; the USSR were invited but chose not to send any athletes. The United States team won the most total medals, 84, and the most gold medals, 38. The host nation won 23 medals, three of them gold.";;;X
EVT_8005010_A;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;Let the warm olympic flame burn;;;X
EVT_8005303_NAME;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;1960 Ethiopian Coup;;;X
EVT_8005303_DESC;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;While Emperor Haile Selassie was away on a state visit, conspirators took hostage several important personages and after taking control of most of Addis Ababa, they declared the emperor deposed and announced more progressive government under the rule of Haile Selassie's eldest son, Asfaw Wossen. Despite support of the students of Haile Selassie University, military units remained loyal and worked together to crush the coup.;;;X
EVT_8005303_A;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;The coup is crushed;;;X
EVT_8005303_B;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;The coup succeeds;;;X
EVT_8005310_NAME;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;;;X
EVT_8005310_DESC;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia.;;;X
EVT_8005310_A;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;Allow work of commission;;;X
EVT_8005310_B;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;It will stay with us;;;X
EVT_8005311_NAME;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;;;X
EVT_8005311_DESC;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;After a vote in Security Council of United Nations it has been decided that Eritrea should join Ethiopia as a federated state.;;;X
EVT_8005311_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005312_NAME;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;Eritrean War of Independence;;;X
EVT_8005312_DESC;The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';The Eritrean War of Independence went on for 30 years until 1991 when the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), having defeated the Ethiopian forces in Eritrea took control of the country.';;;X
EVT_8005312_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005503_NAME;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;Paasikivi elected President;;;X
EVT_8005503_DESC;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;Paasikivi's policies were realist, but radically different than those of the previous 25 years. His main effort was to prove that Finland would present no threat to the Soviet Union. He had to comply with many Soviet demands, including the War Crimes trial. When Mannerheim resigned, Parliament selected Paasikivi to succeed him as President of the Republic.;;;X
EVT_8005503_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005507_NAME;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;Kekkonen elected President;;;X
EVT_8005507_DESC;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;In the presidential election of 1956, Kekkonen defeated the Social Democrat Karl-August Fagerholm 151–149 in the electoral college vote. The campaign was notably vicious, with many personal attacks against several candidates, especially Kekkonen.\n\nDuring Kekkonen's term, the balance of power between the Finnish Council of State and the President tilted heavily towards the President. In principle and formally, parliamentarism was followed with governments nominated by a parliamentary majority. However, Kekkonen-era cabinets were often in bitter internal disagreement and alliances formed broke down easily. Kekkonen used his power extensively to nominate ministers and railroaded new government compositions through the parliamentary process.\n\nThroughout his time as president, Kekkonen did his best to keep political adversaries in check. The Centre Party's rival National Coalition Party was kept in opposition for 20 years despite good election performances. The Rural Party (which had broken away from the Centre Party) was treated similarly. On a few occasions, parliament was dissolved if its political composition did not please Kekkonen. The so called 'Mill Letters' of Kekkonen were a continuous stream of directives to high officials, politicians, journalists and others. Nevertheless, Kekkonen did not use coercive measures while some prominent politicians, most notably Tuure Junnila (NCP) and Veikko Vennamo 'branded' themselves as 'anti-Kekkonen'.;;;X
EVT_8005507_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005510_NAME;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;Death of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim;;;X
EVT_8005510_DESC;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim died on 27 January 1951 in the Cantonal Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland. He was buried on 4 February 1951 in the Hietaniemi Cemetery in Helsinki in a state funeral with full military honours, and today retains respect as Finland's greatest statesman. This may be partly due to his refusal to enter partisan politics (although his sympathies were more right-wing than left-wing), his claim to always serve the fatherland without selfish motives, his personal courage in visiting the frontlines, his ability to work diligently into his late seventies, and his foreign political farsightedness in preparing for the Soviet invasion of Finland years before it occurred.;;;X
EVT_8005511_NAME;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;YYA Treaty;;;X
EVT_8005511_DESC;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance was the basis for Finno–Soviet relations from 1948 to 1992. Under the treaty, the Soviets sought to deter Western powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts.;;;X
EVT_8005511_A;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;Sign the Act;;;X
EVT_8005511_B;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;;;X
EVT_8005512_NAME;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;1952 Summer Olympics;;;X
EVT_8005512_DESC;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;The 1952 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XV Olympiad, were an international multi-sport event held in Helsinki, Finland in 1952. Helsinki had been earlier given the 1940 Summer Olympics, which were cancelled due to World War II.;;;X
EVT_8005512_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8005520_NAME;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;Ending Finnish Continuation War;;;X
EVT_8005520_DESC;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;The Continuation War was the second of two wars fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II. The Soviet strategic offensive in the summer of 1944 drove the Finns from most of the territories they occupied but later stalemated, leading to Moscow Armistice in September.;;;X
EVT_8005520_A;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;Press for some concessions but do not push too far;;;X
EVT_8005520_B;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;We want to subdue them and install our regime;;;X
EVT_8005521_NAME;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;Finland comes to terms with Soviet Union;;;X
EVT_8005521_DESC;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;Just as the Winter War ended with land concessions to the Soviet Union, the Continuation War was also ended with conditional peace negotiations. After stalemate in the course of the war the Moscow Armistice was signed which decided that the Finns confirm their losses from the Winter War, cede areas of Petsamo and Salla, pay 300 millions USD of reperations as well as lease Porkkala naval base to the Soviet Union, legalize Communist parties and vow to put leaders responsible for the war on trial.;;;X
EVT_8005521_A;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;Sign Moscow Armistice;;;X
EVT_8005521_B;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;We hope for the tides of war to turn;;;X
EVT_8005720_NAME;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;The Fourth Republic;;;X
EVT_8005720_DESC;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;The Fourth Republic suffered from little political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession. Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a constitutional system, to be known as the French Fifth Republic.;;;X
EVT_8005720_A;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;Initiate it!;;;X
EVT_8005720_B;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;Let us remain where we are;;;X
EVT_8006301_NAME;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;The Ten Years of Spring;;;X
EVT_8006301_DESC;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;Ongoing unrest prompted two young officers at the time, Jacobo Arbenz and Francisco Javier Arana, to lead a final coup and unseat the dictatorship. In a highly popular move, the pair of officers then stepped aside and made way for a general election. This started what is called The Ten Years of Spring, a period of free speech and political activity, proposed land reform, and a perception that great progress could be made in Guatemala.;;;X
EVT_8006301_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8006304_NAME;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;Operation PBSUCCESS;;;X
EVT_8006304_DESC;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état was a covert operation organized by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala. Árbenz's government put forth a number of new policies, such as seizing and expropriating unused, unfarmed land that private corporations set aside long ago and giving the land to peasants. The U.S. intelligence community deemed such plans communist in nature. This led CIA director Allen Dulles to fear that Guatemala would become a 'Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere'.\n\nÁrbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of the U.S. government to take action against Árbenz.\n\nThe operation, known by the code name Operation PBSUCCESS, lasted from late 1953 to 1954. The CIA armed and trained an ad-hoc 'Liberation Army' of about 400 fighters under the command of a then-exiled Guatemalan army officer, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and used them in conjunction with a complex and largely experimental diplomatic, economic, and propaganda campaign. The operation effectively ended the experimental period of representative democracy in Guatemala known as the 'Ten Years of Spring', which ended with Árbenz's official resignation. Following the coup, the Guatemalan Civil War began, a civil war involving some of the most brutal counterinsurgency of its time.;;;X
EVT_8006304_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8006506_NAME;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;Ousting of Cheddi Jagan;;;X
EVT_8006506_DESC;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;Jagan won in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was removed from power militarily by Britain, which, under strong behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States and the CIA, asserted that he had ties to the Soviet Union. Jagan resigned as British Guiana prime minister after 133 days. Britain suspended the constitution and chose an interim government.;;;X
EVT_8006506_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8006601_NAME;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;Coup of Paul Magloire;;;X
EVT_8006601_DESC;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;In 1946, Paul Magloire participated in a successful coup against the president, Élie Lescot. When his successor, President Dumarsais Estimé tried to extend his term of office in 1950, Magloire ousted him with the help of a local elite and retook power.\n\nDuring Magloire's rule, Ha?ti became a favorite tourist spot for US and European tourists. His anti-communist position also gained favorable reception from the US government. Notably, he used revenues from the sale of coffee to repair towns, build roads, public buildings, and a dam. He also oversaw the institution of women's suffrage. Magloire was very fond of having a vivid social life, staging numerous parties, social events, and ceremonies.;;;X
EVT_8006601_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8006604_NAME;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;Hurricane Hazel;;;X
EVT_8006604_DESC;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40 percent of the coffee trees and 50 percent of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come.\n\nIn the aftermath of Hazel, a three-day period of national mourning was declared in Haiti for hurricane victims. With existing infrastructure already poor, the recovery was very slow since many of the few existing roads were blocked, and communications equipment was either out, damaged, or destroyed. The Haitian Red Cross appealed for assistance to the International Red Cross, while the American Red Cross made a donation of $25,000. Despite the relief effort, there was an outbreak of typhoid fever following Hazel due to a lack of clean water.;;;X
EVT_8006604_A;A tragic event;A tragic event;A tragic event;A tragic event;A tragic event;A tragic event;A tragic event;A tragic event;;;X
EVT_8006605_NAME;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;The Duvalier Era;;;X
EVT_8006605_DESC;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;François Duvalier was the President of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname 'Papa Doc'. He opposed a military coup d'état in 1950, and was elected President in 1957 on a populist and black nationalist platform. His rule, based on a purged military, a rural militia and the use of a personality cult and voodoo, resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and an ensuing 'brain drain' from which the country has not recovered. Duvalier fostered a personality cult around himself, and claimed to be the physical embodiment of the island nation.;;;X
EVT_8006605_A;Let them fear;Let them fear;Let them fear;Let them fear;Let them fear;Let them fear;Let them fear;Let them fear;;;X
EVT_8006704_NAME;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;Queen Juliana;;;X
EVT_8006704_DESC;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;For several weeks in the autumn of 1947 and again in 1948 the Princess acted as Regent when, for health reasons, Queen Wilhelmina was unable to perform her duties. The Independence in Indonesia, which saw more than 150,000 Dutch troops stationed there as decolonization force, was regarded as an economic disaster for the Netherlands. With the certain loss of the prized colony, the Queen announced her intention to abdicate. On 6 September 1948, with the eyes of the world upon her, Princess Juliana, the twelfth member of the House of Orange to rule the Netherlands, was inaugurated Queen in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam.;;;X
EVT_8006704_A;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;Long live Queen Juliana!;;;X
EVT_8006804_NAME;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;Honduran Coup of 1957;;;X
EVT_8006804_DESC;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;n October 1955, after a general strike by banana workers on the north coast, young military reformists staged a coup that installed a provisional junta. Capital punishment was abolished in 1956, though the last person to be executed was in 1940. There were constituent assembly elections in 1957 which appointed Ramón Villeda as President, and itself becoming a national Congress with a 6-year term.;;;X
EVT_8006804_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007205_NAME;Independence of India;Independence of India;Independence of India;Independence of India;Independence of India;Independence of India;Independence of India;Independence of India;;;X
EVT_8007205_DESC;"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";"The first organized militant movements, with a goal of independent India, showed up in Bengal, but they later took to the political stage in the form of a mainstream movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress (INC), with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for civil service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The last stages of the freedom struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, Muhammad Ali Jinnah's constitutional struggle for the rights of minorities in India, and several other campaigns. Legendary figures such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose later came to adopt a militant approach to the movement, while others like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati wanted both political and economic freedom for India's peasants and toiling masses. Poets including Rabindranath Tagore used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India movement (led by 'Mahatma' Gandhi) and the Indian National Army (INA) movement (led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose) and others, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of the British.\n\nThe work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which created the independent dominions of India and Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956.";;;X
EVT_8007205_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007212_NAME;Army of India;Army of India;Army of India;Army of India;Army of India;Army of India;Army of India;Army of India;;;X
EVT_8007212_DESC;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;In World War II Indian soldiers fought for the Allies. In 1939, British officials had no plan for expansion and training of Indian forces, which comprised about 130,000 men. (In addition there were 44,000 men in British units in India in 1939.) Their mission was internal security and defense against a possible Russian threat through Afghanistan. As the war progressed, the size and role of the Indian Army expanded dramatically, and troops were sent to battle fronts as soon as possible. The most serious problem was lack of equipment. Indian units served in Burma, where in 1944-45 five Indian divisions were engaged along with one British and three African divisions. Even larger numbers operated in the Middle East. Some 87,000 Indian soldiers died in the war. On the opposing side, an Indian National Army was formed under Japanese control, but had little effect on the war.\n\nUpon independence and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, four of the ten Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army. The rest of the British Indian Army was divided between the newly created nations of Republic of India and Republic of Pakistan. The Punjab Boundary Force, which had been formed to help police the Punjab during the partition period, was disbanded, and Headquarters Delhi and East Punjab Command was formed to administer the area.;;;X
EVT_8007212_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007213_NAME;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;Acquisition of princely states;;;X
EVT_8007213_DESC;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;After the partition of India, the State of Hyderabad, a princely-state under the rule of a Nizam, chose to remain independent. The Nizam, refused to accede his state to the Union of India. The following stand-off between the Government of India and the Nizam ended on 12 September 1948 when India's then deputy-Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ordered Indian troops to secure the state. With 5 days of low-intensity fighting, the Indian Army, backed by a squadron of Hawker Tempest aircraft of the Indian Air Force, routed the Hyderabad State forces. Five infantry battalions and one armoured squadron of the Indian Army were engaged in the operation. The following day, the State of Hyderabad was proclaimed as a part of the Union of India. Major General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri, who led the Operation Polo was appointed the Military Governor of Hyderabad (1948–1949) to restore law and order.\n\nNote: Our non-intervention in this case will mean that we forfeit our right to intervene in the matters of Kashmir.;;;X
EVT_8007213_A;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;Iron fist in a velvet glove;;;X
EVT_8007213_B;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;Let them retain self-governance;;;X
EVT_8007214_NAME;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;State of Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007214_DESC;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;Jammu and Kashmir was, from 1846 until 1947, a princely state in the British Empire in India, and was ruled by a Maharaja. The state was created in 1846 when, after its victory in the First Anglo-Sikh War, the East India Company annexed the Kashmir valley and immediately sold it to the Dogra ruler of Jammu under the Treaty of Amritsar.\n\nAt the time of the partition of India, the ruler of the state, which was a Muslim-majority region, vacillated between joining Muslim-majority Pakistan, Hindu-majority India, and remaining independent. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 the region of the princely state became a disputed territory.;;;X
EVT_8007214_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007215_NAME;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;Future of Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007215_DESC;"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";"Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars.";;;X
EVT_8007215_A;Acceede India;Acceede India;Acceede India;Acceede India;Acceede India;Acceede India;Acceede India;Acceede India;;;X
EVT_8007215_B;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;Acceede Pakistan;;;X
EVT_8007215_C;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;Try to remain independent;;;X
EVT_8007216_NAME;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007216_DESC;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in Pakistan and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;;;X
EVT_8007216_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007217_NAME;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007217_DESC;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of India. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;;;X
EVT_8007217_A;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007217_B;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8007218_NAME;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;Accession of Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007218_DESC;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;Kashmir asked us for protection and decided to join our state. We can be sure that this move will not be received well in India and there is a huge risk of war breaking out.;;;X
EVT_8007218_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007219_NAME;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;India annexes Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007219_DESC;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province joined a newly created state of Pakistan. This move is outrageous and the general belief is that we should immediately react with full force.;;;X
EVT_8007219_A;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007219_B;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8007220_NAME;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;;;X
EVT_8007220_DESC;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;;;X
EVT_8007220_A;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007220_B;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8007221_NAME;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;Kashmir wants to remain independent;;;X
EVT_8007221_DESC;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;Due to a personal decision of the ruler of Kashmir, the province will remain independent. Although it is a theoretical right of a princely state, nobody will dare speak against our aggression and it is in our best interest to subjugate the mountaineous region before someone else does this.;;;X
EVT_8007221_A;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007221_B;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8007222_NAME;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;Pakistan invades Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007222_DESC;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. Pakistan has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;;;X
EVT_8007222_A;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007222_B;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8007223_NAME;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;India invades Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007223_DESC;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;Kashmir wanted to remain independent but in its geopolitical position this was not easy to achieve. India has just invaded Kashmir to ensure its grip on mountaineous region. We should react to this with force or Kashmir will surely fall into enemy's hands in its entirety.;;;X
EVT_8007223_A;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;There'll be war over Kashmir;;;X
EVT_8007223_B;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;Leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8007224_NAME;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007224_DESC;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Indian boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;;;X
EVT_8007224_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007225_NAME;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007225_DESC;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to Pakistan but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Muslim population.;;;X
EVT_8007225_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007226_NAME;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007226_DESC;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Indian side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;;;X
EVT_8007226_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007227_NAME;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007227_DESC;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;Pakistani army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Pakistani hands.;;;X
EVT_8007227_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007228_NAME;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;;;X
EVT_8007228_DESC;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;;;X
EVT_8007228_A;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;;;X
EVT_8007229_NAME;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;First Kashmir War comes to stalemate;;;X
EVT_8007229_DESC;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;Both sides of the war already lost many men over Kashmir but the future of the region remains unclear. The frontier comes directly through the center of the state and there is little chance that the following month are going to change this. For now, we have to agree that the province remains divided, roughly along ethnic borders, if it is possible to mark clear ethnic border in this region.;;;X
EVT_8007229_A;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;Kashmir will remain bone of contention;;;X
EVT_8007230_NAME;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;Marginal victory in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007230_DESC;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;The battles in mountaineous region were tough but we managed to push the frontier to the Pakistani side and counquer whole Kashmir. There's little chance for us to achieve something more but at least we can gain what we fought for, the region of Kashmir.;;;X
EVT_8007230_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007231_NAME;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;Marginal defeat in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007231_DESC;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and we are unable to reconquer the state of Kashmir. Due to stalling of frontier and prolonged warfare, there is little we can do but to accept that for now Kashmir will remain in Indian hands.;;;X
EVT_8007231_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007232_NAME;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;Total victory in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007232_DESC;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;We managed to push deep into the enemy's territory, taking not only Kashmir but areas far behind the Pakistani boundaries. We are in a position to claim the whole territory of the princely state as well as resolve ethnic border disputes in a couple of other provinces to our liking.;;;X
EVT_8007232_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007233_NAME;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;Total defeat in First Kashmir War;;;X
EVT_8007233_DESC;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;Indian army defended its mountain frontier and pulled off a large-scale counterattack which found us surprised and ill-prepared. Facing total defeat we have to agree to give the whole area of Kashmir to India but also secede a couple of border provinces with sizeable Hindu population.;;;X
EVT_8007233_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007240_NAME;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;Invasion of Goa;;;X
EVT_8007240_DESC;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;;;X
EVT_8007240_A;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;Carry out Operation Vijay;;;X
EVT_8007240_B;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;;;X
EVT_8007241_NAME;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;Operation Vijay commences;;;X
EVT_8007241_DESC;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;For many years after India gained its independence, it made diplomatic overtures to gain control over a Portuguese colony of Goa. This met staunch opposition of Salazar's regime, not willing to discuss any peaceful withdrawal, as in the case of other parts of Portuguese colonial empire.\n\nThe 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, was an action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its Indian enclaves in 1961. The armed action, codenamed Operation Vijay by the Indian government, involved air, sea and land strikes for over 36 hours, and was a decisive victory for India, ending 451 years of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa. Twenty two Indians and thirty Portuguese were killed in the fighting. The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory, while Portugal viewed it as an aggression against national soil.;;;X
EVT_8007241_A;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;Operation Vijay is a success;;;X
EVT_8007241_B;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;Operation Vijay is a failure;;;X
EVT_8007242_NAME;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;Conquest of Goa;;;X
EVT_8007242_DESC;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;Despite orders from Lisbon, Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva took stock of the numerical superiority of the Indian troops, as well as the food and ammunition supplies available to his forces and took the decision to surrender. He later described his orders to destroy Goa as 'um sacrifício inútil' (a useless sacrifice). In a communication to all Portuguese forces under his command, he stated, “Having considered the defence of the Peninsula of Mormugao… from aerial, naval and ground fire of the enemy and … having considered the difference between the forces and the resources… the situation does not allow myself to proceed with the fight without great sacrifice of the lives of the inhabitants of Vasco da Gama, I have decided with … my patriotism well present, to get in touch with the enemy … I order all my forces to cease-fire.”;;;X
EVT_8007242_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007243_NAME;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;Failure of Operation Vijay;;;X
EVT_8007243_DESC;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;Due to very poor planning, fierce Portuguese defence and international pressure we had to call off our invasion, suffering heavy losses. Those are not only in men and ammunition, our international reputation also suffered a lot.;;;X
EVT_8007243_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007303_NAME;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;Independence of Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007303_DESC;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;The Proclamation of Indonesian Independence was read at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, August 17, 1945. The declaration marked the start of the diplomatic and armed-resistance of the Indonesian National Revolution, fighting against the forces of the Netherlands until the latter officially acknowledged Indonesia's independence in 1949. In 2005, the Netherlands declared that they had decided to accept 17 August 1945 as Indonesia's independence date. Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, who were appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, were the document's signatories.\n\nThe draft was prepared only a few hours earlier, on the night of August 16, by Sukarno, Hatta, and Soebardjo, at Rear-Admiral Maeda (Minoru) Tadashi's house. The original Indonesian Declaration of Independence was typed by Sayuti Melik. Maeda himself was sleeping in his room upstairs. He was agreeable to the idea of Indonesia's independence, and had lent his house for the drafting of the declaration. Marshal Terauchi, the highest-ranking Japanese leader in South East Asia and son of Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake, was however against Indonesia's independence, scheduled for August 24.\n\nWhile the formal preparation of the declaration, and the official independence itself for that matter, had been carefully planned a few months earlier, the actual declaration date was brought forward almost inadvertently as a consequence of the Japanese unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15 following the Nagasaki atomic bombing.;;;X
EVT_8007303_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007313_NAME;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;Guided democracy;;;X
EVT_8007313_DESC;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;Guided Democracy was the political system in place in Indonesia from 1957 until the New Order began in 1966. It was the brainchild of President Sukarno, and was an attempt to bring about political stability. Sukarno believed that Western-style democracy was inappropriate for Indonesia's situation. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of discussion and consensus, which occurred under the guidance of village elders.\n\nSukarno proposed a threefold blend of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government. This was intended to appease the three main factions in Indonesian politics — the army, Islamic groups, and the communists. With the support of the military, he proclaimed in February 1957, 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all political parties of importance (including the Communist Party of Indonesia).;;;X
EVT_8007313_A;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;Democracy needs good guidance;;;X
EVT_8007320_NAME;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;Indonesia prepares for independence war;;;X
EVT_8007320_DESC;"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";"It was mid-September before news of the declaration of independence spread to the outer islands, and many Indonesians far from the capital Jakarta did not believe it. As the news spread, most Indonesians came to regard themselves as pro-Republican, and a mood of revolution swept across the country.The Japanese were required by the terms of the surrender to both lay down their arms and maintain order; a contradiction that some resolved by handing weapons to Japanese-trained Indonesians.\n\nThe resulting power vacuums in the weeks following the Japanese surrender, created an atmosphere of uncertainty, but also one of opportunity for the Republicans. Many pemuda joined pro-Republic struggle groups. The most disciplined were soldiers from the Japanese-formed but disbanded Giyugun (PETA) and Heiho groups. Many groups were undisciplined, due to both the circumstances of their formation and what they perceived as revolutionary spirit. In the first weeks, Japanese troops often withdrew from urban areas to avoid confrontations.";;;X
EVT_8007320_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007321_NAME;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;Dutch East Indies prepares defence of its possessions;;;X
EVT_8007321_DESC;"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";"The Dutch accused Sukarno and Hatta of collaborating with the Japanese, and denounced the Republic as a creation of Japanese fascism. The Dutch East Indies administration had just received a ten million dollar loan from the United States to finance its return to Indonesia.\n\nThe Netherlands, however, was critically weakened from World War II in Europe and did not return as a significant military force until early 1946. The Japanese and members of the Allied forces reluctantly agreed to act as caretakers. In the Japanese navy areas, the arrival of Allied troops quickly prevented revolutionary activities where Australian troops, followed by Dutch troops and administrators, took the Japanese surrender. Due to the lack of strong resistance, two Australian Army divisions succeeded in occupying eastern Indonesia.\n\nThe British were charged with restoring order and civilian government in Java. The Dutch took this to mean pre-war colonial administration and continued to claim sovereignty over Indonesia. British Commonwealth troops did not, however, land on Java to accept the Japanese surrender until late September 1945. In an attempt to avoid clashes with Indonesians, the British commander Lieutenant General Sir Philip Christison, diverted soldiers of the former Dutch colonial army to eastern Indonesia, where Dutch reoccupation was proceeding smoothly. Tensions mounted as Allied troops entered Java and Sumatra; clashes broke out between Republicans and their perceived enemies, namely Dutch prisoners, Dutch colonial troops (KNIL), Chinese, Indo-Europeans and Japanese.";;;X
EVT_8007321_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007322_NAME;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;Indonesian National Revolution;;;X
EVT_8007322_DESC;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;The first stages of warfare were initiated in October 1945 when, in accordance with the terms of their surrender, the Japanese tried to re-establish the authority they relinquished to Indonesians in the towns and cities. Japanese military police killed Republican pemuda in Pekalongan (Central Java) on 3 October, and Japanese troops drove Republican pemuda out of Bandung in West Java and handed the city to the British, but the fiercest fighting involving the Japanese was in Semarang. On 14 October, British forces began to occupy the city. Retreating Republican forces retaliated by killing between 130 and 300 Japanese prisoners they were holding. Five hundred Japanese and 2,000 Indonesians had been killed and the Japanese had almost captured the city six days later when British forces arrived. The Allies repatriated the remaining Japanese troops and civilians to Japan, although about 1,000 elected to remain behind and later assisted Republican forces in fighting for independence.;;;X
EVT_8007322_A;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;It's time to fight for independence!;;;X
EVT_8007322_B;Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);Our struggle is futile (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8007323_NAME;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;Indonesian revolution dies down;;;X
EVT_8007323_DESC;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;Before it really started, the Indonesian National Revolution lost its momentum. Our military presence prevented major rebellions from happening and quarrelling Indonesian leaders could not decide how could they remove colonial administration from the archipelago. Still, isolated incidents of uneasy Indonesians are bound to happen for years to come.;;;X
EVT_8007323_A;Great news;Great news;Great news;Great news;Great news;Great news;Great news;Great news;;;X
EVT_8007325_NAME;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;;;X
EVT_8007325_DESC;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;;;X
EVT_8007325_A;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;;;X
EVT_8007325_B;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;;;X
EVT_8007326_NAME;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;Ceasefire of 1945;;;X
EVT_8007326_DESC;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;October 1945 saw the first chance of temporary ceasefire between the sides of the conflict. Sukarno and, Hatta and Amir Sjarifuddin were flown in by the British to negotiate the specific terms. Historically, the fighting broke out very soon after its signing and a British commander, Brigadier A.W.S. Mallaby was killed. In a subsequent lull in fighting, British reinforcements were brought in and the internees are evacuated, yet the hostilities continued.;;;X
EVT_8007326_A;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;Ceasefire fails;;;X
EVT_8007326_B;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;Ceasefire succeeds;;;X
EVT_8007327_NAME;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;Proposal of Federated Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007327_DESC;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;;;X
EVT_8007327_A;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;;;X
EVT_8007327_B;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;;;X
EVT_8007328_NAME;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;Indonesians agree to the Federated Indonesia proposal;;;X
EVT_8007328_DESC;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;While Republicans originally fought for full independence from the Dutch, prolonged warfare brought willingness to discuss independence on broader terms. At times, the Netherlands was ready to recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea.;;;X
EVT_8007328_A;Never (resume war);Never (resume war);Never (resume war);Never (resume war);Never (resume war);Never (resume war);Never (resume war);Never (resume war);;;X
EVT_8007328_B;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;Agree to the plan;;;X
EVT_8007329_NAME;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;Resumption of war;;;X
EVT_8007329_DESC;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;After proposal of including Republicans into federated Indonesia failed, the conflict started anew, with both parties returning to their original goals.;;;X
EVT_8007329_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007330_NAME;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;Fighting on Java;;;X
EVT_8007330_DESC;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;The Battle of Surabaya was the heaviest single battle of the revolution and became a national symbol of Indonesian resistance. Pemuda groups in Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, seized arms and ammunition from the Japanese. By the time the Allied forces arrived at the end of October 1945, the pemuda foothold in Surabaya city was described as 'a strong unified fortress'.\n\nIn September and October 1945 Europeans and pro-Dutch Eurasians were attacked and killed by Indonesian mobs. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Soon the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.;;;X
EVT_8007330_A;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;We receive more troops;;;X
EVT_8007331_NAME;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;Insurgencies in Sumatra;;;X
EVT_8007331_DESC;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;While Java was the main battlefield of the whole revolution, isolated rebellions happened on different islands of the archipelago. Specifically, Sumatra was the second most important target of republican uprisings.;;;X
EVT_8007331_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007331_B;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007331_C;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007332_NAME;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;;;X
EVT_8007332_DESC;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;;;X
EVT_8007332_A;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;Propose the agreement;;;X
EVT_8007332_B;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;Fight on;;;X
EVT_8007333_NAME;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;Linggajati Agreement;;;X
EVT_8007333_DESC;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;The Linggadjati Agreement, brokered by the British and concluded in November 1946, saw the Netherlands recognise the Republic as the de-facto authority over Java, Madura, and Sumatra. Both parties agreed to the formation of the 'United States of Indonesia' by 1 January 1949, a semi-autonomous federal state with the Monarchy of the Netherlands at its head. The Republican-controlled Java and Sumatra would be one of its states, alongside areas that were generally under stronger Dutch influence, including southern Kalimantan, and the 'Great East', which consisted of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and Western New Guinea. The Central National Committee of Indonesia (KNIP) did not ratify the agreement until February 1947, and neither the Republic nor the Dutch were satisfied with it. On 25 March 1947 the Lower House of the Dutch parliament ratified a 'stripped down' version of the treaty, which was not accepted by the Republic. Both sides soon accused the other of violating the agreement.;;;X
EVT_8007333_A;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;Ratify the agreement;;;X
EVT_8007333_B;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;Don't negotiate with the enemy!;;;X
EVT_8007334_NAME;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;Outcome of Linggajati Agreement;;;X
EVT_8007334_DESC;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;In spite of some success at first, peace negotiations were broken and the Dutch claimed that it was the disorganization of Republicans that resulted in breakdown of Linggajati Agreement. At midnight on 20 July 1947, the Dutch launched a major military offensive called Operatie Product, with the intent of conquering the Republic. Claiming violations of the Linggajati Agreement, the Dutch described the campaign as Politionele acties ('police actions') to restore law and order. At the time the majority of the Dutch troops in Indonesia belonged to the Royal Netherlands Army. Soon after the end of World War II, 25,000 volunteers (among them 5,000 marines) had been sent overseas. They were later followed by larger numbers of conscripts from the Netherlands. ;;;X
EVT_8007334_A;Send troops;Send troops;Send troops;Send troops;Send troops;Send troops;Send troops;Send troops;;;X
EVT_8007334_B;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;Honor the agreement;;;X
EVT_8007335_NAME;Operation Product;Operation Product;Operation Product;Operation Product;Operation Product;Operation Product;Operation Product;Operation Product;;;X
EVT_8007335_DESC;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;Operatie Product, was the first of two major Dutch military offensives against the Republic of Indonesia during the Indonesian National Revolution. It took place following Dutch assertions that Indonesia cooperated insufficiently in the implementation of the Linggadjati Agreement, which had been ratified on March 25, 1947 by the lower chamber of the Dutch parliament. This police action was also influenced by a Dutch perception that the Republic had failed to curb the influence of Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Indians and the rising Indonesian Communist Party.\n\nOperatie Product, directed by General Simon Spoor, was intended to occupy economically important areas of West and East Java, leaving Yogyakarta, seat of the Republican government, alone because of the high costs that the fighting was expected to incur. On July 21, the Dutch deployed three divisions in Java and three brigades on the less-densely populated Sumatra. The operation resulted in the occupation of large parts of Java and Sumatra, with the Republican army (TNI) offering only weak resistance and later forced to conduct guerilla operations from the hills in Dutch-controlled territory.;;;X
EVT_8007335_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007336_NAME;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;Police action of 1948/49;;;X
EVT_8007336_DESC;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;Frustrated at negotiations with the Republic and believing it weakened by both the Darul Islam and Madiun insurgencies, the Dutch launched a military offensive on 19 December 1948 which it termed 'Operatie Kraai' (Operation Crow). This second police action was aimed at forcing the Republic to cooperate with the Dutch government in the implementation of the federalist policy as stipulated in the Linggadjati Agreement. The purpose was to organize the new Indonesia as a federal state that would remain closely associated with the Netherlands. The Indonesians had breached the armistice signed following Operatie Product.The Renville Agreement, as the armistice was called, stipulated the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Dutch-occupied territory in exchange for ending the Dutch naval blockade, and this was indeed put into effect. After some time, however, the Indonesian military, secretly, returned and began guerrilla operations against the Dutch.;;;X
EVT_8007336_A;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;Carry out the police action;;;X
EVT_8007336_B;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;;;X
EVT_8007337_NAME;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;Operation Crow;;;X
EVT_8007337_DESC;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;Operatie Kraai was the code name for a Dutch military offensive against the newly formed Republic of Indonesia in December 1948 - January 1949. Historically, during this attack, the Dutch managed to capture the Indonesian Republic's temporary capital, Yogyakarta, and seized Indonesian leaders such as Republican President Sukarno.;;;X
EVT_8007337_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007360_NAME;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007360_DESC;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;;;X
EVT_8007360_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007361_NAME;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007361_DESC;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;;;X
EVT_8007361_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007362_NAME;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007362_DESC;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;;;X
EVT_8007362_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007363_NAME;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;Prolonged fight in Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007363_DESC;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;The Dutch East Indies had long been a valuable resource to the Netherlands, so the Dutch feared its independence. The Indonesian National Revolution followed as Indonesia attempted to secure its independence in the face of Dutch diplomatic and military opposition (sometimes brutal in nature). Throughout the war, the Netherlands felt heavy burden of military maintenance in Indonesia as well as Increasing international pressure on giving up these lands. During and after the Indonesian National Revolution, around 300,000 people, pre-dominantly 'Indos' (Dutch-Indonesian Eurasians), left Indonesia for the Netherlands. This difficult, complex and messy mass migration was called repatriation, but the majority of this group had never set foot in the Netherlands before.;;;X
EVT_8007363_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007365_NAME;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;;;X
EVT_8007365_DESC;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;;;X
EVT_8007365_A;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;;;X
EVT_8007366_NAME;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;;;X
EVT_8007366_DESC;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;;;X
EVT_8007366_A;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;;;X
EVT_8007366_B;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;;;X
EVT_8007367_NAME;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;;;X
EVT_8007367_DESC;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;;;X
EVT_8007367_A;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;;;X
EVT_8007367_B;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;;;X
EVT_8007368_NAME;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;Surrender Dutch East Indies;;;X
EVT_8007368_DESC;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;On 28 January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning the recent Dutch military offensive against Republican forces in Indonesia and demanded restoration of Republican government. It also urged the resumption of negotiations to find a peaceful settlement between the two sides.\n\nGovernment-in-exile was allowed to return to Yogyakarta after 6 months in exile on 6 July 1949. In order to ensure commonality of negotiating position between the Republic and the federal delegates, in the second half of July 1949 and from 31 July – 2 August – Inter-Indonesian Conferences were in Yogyakarta between all component authorities of future United States of Indonesia. The participants agreed on basic principles and framework for the constitution.\n\nThe issue of the inclusion or not of Western New Guinea almost resulted in the talks becoming deadlocked. The Indonesian delegations took the view that Indonesia should comprise the entire territory of Dutch East Indies. The Dutch refused to compromise, claiming Western New Guinea had no ethnic ties with the rest of the archipelago. Finally, a compromise was reached: the status of Western New Guinea would be determined through negotiations between the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands within a year of the transfer of sovereignty.\n\nThe Conference was officially closed in the Dutch parliament building on 2 November 1949. Sovereignty was transferred to the United States of Indonesia on 27 December 1949.;;;X
EVT_8007368_A;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;Surrender;;;X
EVT_8007368_B;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;Continue the war;;;X
EVT_8007369_NAME;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;Dutch East Indies in turmoil;;;X
EVT_8007369_DESC;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;During the years of struggle against republican revolts, the colonial administration sparked so much dissent in the area it controlled that it is no longer capable of holding off constant rebellions. The war against republican revolters is lost for good.;;;X
EVT_8007369_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007370_NAME;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;;;X
EVT_8007370_DESC;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;The resilience of Indonesian Republican resistance and active international diplomacy set world opinion against the Dutch efforts to re-establish their colony. The second 'police action' was a diplomatic disaster for the Dutch cause. The newly appointed United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson pushed the Netherlands government into negotiations earlier recommended by the United Nations but until then defied by the Netherlands. The Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference was held in The Hague from 23 August 1949 to 2 November 1949 between the Republic, the Netherlands, and the Dutch-created federal states. The Netherlands agreed to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over a new federal state known as the 'United States of Indonesia' (RUSI). It would include all the territory of the former Dutch East Indies with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea.;;;X
EVT_8007370_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007371_NAME;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;End of the Indonesian National Revolution;;;X
EVT_8007371_DESC;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;Millions upon millions flooded the sidewalks, the roads. They were crying, cheering, screaming '...Long live Bung Karno...' They clung to the sides of the car, the hood, the running boards. They grabbed at me to kiss my fingers. Soldiers beat a path for me to the topmost step of the big white palace. There I raised both hands high. A stillness swept over the millions. 'Alhamdulillah – Thank God,' I cried. 'We are free'\n\n- Sukarno's recollections of independence achieved;;;X
EVT_8007371_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007372_NAME;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;United States of Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8007372_DESC;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;The Netherlands set up the Bijeenkomst voor Federaal Overleg (BFO), a body comprising the leadership of the federal states, and charged with the formation of a United States of Indonesia and an interim government. The Dutch plans, however, had no place for the Republic unless it accepted a minor role already defined for it. Later plans included Java and Sumatra but dropped all mention of the Republic. The main sticking point in the negotiations was the balance of power between the Netherlands High Representative and the Republican forces.\n\nThus, the newly created federation remains half-way between colonial administration of Dutch East Indies and the republican state the Indonesian revolutionaries fought for. Still, it's as close to self-governance the Indonesians managed to get.;;;X
EVT_8007372_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007380_NAME;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;Fate of Netherlands New Guinea;;;X
EVT_8007380_DESC;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;;;X
EVT_8007380_A;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;Come to agreement;;;X
EVT_8007380_B;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;We will defend it at all costs!;;;X
EVT_8007381_NAME;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;New hostilities over Netherlands New Guinea;;;X
EVT_8007381_DESC;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956.\n\nStill, the colonial sentiment in the Netherlands proved to be strong enough and the Dutch seem to renege over their previous agreeements. Historically, Indonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961 to help annex the western half of the island. It seems that it's the only way to achieve the Indonesian goals.;;;X
EVT_8007381_A;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;Invade the troublesome island;;;X
EVT_8007381_B;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;Back down, we are not prepared;;;X
EVT_8007382_NAME;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;Peaceful annexation of Netherlands New Guinea;;;X
EVT_8007382_DESC;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;In 1949, when the rest of the Dutch East Indies became fully independent as Indonesia, the Dutch retained sovereignty over western New Guinea, and took steps to prepare it for independence as a separate country. Some five thousand teachers were flown there. The Dutch put an emphasis upon political, business, and civic skills. The first local naval cadets graduated in 1955 and the first army brigade become operational in 1956. Elections were held across Dutch New Guinea in 1959 and an elected New Guinea Council officially took office on 5 April 1961, to prepare for full independence by the end of that decade. The Dutch endorsed the council’s selection of a new national anthem and the Morning Star as the new national flag on 1 December 1961.\n\nIndonesia attempted to invade the region on 18 December 1961. Following some skirmishes between Indonesian and Dutch forces, an agreement was reached and the territory was placed under United Nations administration in October 1962. It was subsequently transferred to Indonesia in May 1963 even if it was not formally annexed by Indonesia until 1969.;;;X
EVT_8007382_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8007410_NAME;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;Preventing Operation Harvest;;;X
EVT_8007410_DESC;"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";"The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (codenamed Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA. IRA Chief of Staff Tony Magan set out to create 'a new Army, untarnished by the dissent and scandals of the previous decade'. By the middle of this decade the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved by means of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed ""Operation Harvest"" – was devised by Seán Cronin. It envisaged the use of guerrilla units called flying columns, initially four units of about 50 men each. They were to operate from within the Republic of Ireland and to attack military and infrastructural targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another twenty organisers were sent to various locations within Northern Ireland to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin. An IRA stated that the aim of the campaign was to: 'break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces.'\n\nAt this point we can continue our policy of slow and steady work against actions of IRA or, in anticipation of their actions, impose the hardest possible measures so that no trouble is going to happen to Northern Ireland, if we only care.";;;X
EVT_8007410_A;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;Be diligent but not overly oppressive;;;X
EVT_8007410_B;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;Impose most stringent measures;;;X
EVT_8007411_NAME;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;IRA bombings of 1957;;;X
EVT_8007411_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nThe campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA members on targets on the Border in the early hours of 12 December 1956. A BBC relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt by a unit led by an 18-year-old Seamus Costello, as was a B-Specials post near Newry and a half-built Army barracks at Enniskillen was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire. The IRA issued a statement on 12 December announcing the start of the Campaign, 'Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours'.\n\nAll in all, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded.;;;X
EVT_8007411_A;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007411_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007412_NAME;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;IRA bombings of 1958;;;X
EVT_8007412_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In November of that year, the IRA however suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber, County Louth, which exploded prematurely. By 1958, the campaign's initial impetus had largely dissipated. Certain IRA activities produced public hostility and by 1958, there were already many within the IRA in favour of calling the campaign off. The Cork IRA, for instance, had effectively withdrawn.;;;X
EVT_8007412_A;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007412_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007413_NAME;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;Internment policy on IRA fighters;;;X
EVT_8007413_DESC;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;During years of Border Campaign, the Republic’s government, feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Seán Cronin. Clann na Poblachta (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Seán MacBride) withdrew its support for the government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957, Sinn Féin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes, while Clann na Poblachta's vote dropped sharply. Historically, the new government proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. Then in November 1961 his Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey established military courts which handed down long prison sentences to convicted IRA men. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.;;;X
EVT_8007413_A;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;Military courts will show no leniency;;;X
EVT_8007413_B;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;Continue tepid opposition;;;X
EVT_8007413_C;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;Covertly support IRA;;;X
EVT_8007414_NAME;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;IRA bombings of 1959;;;X
EVT_8007414_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, by mid-1958, 500 republicans were jailed or interned, North and South. The decline in activity meant that the Fianna Fail government in the South felt confident enough to end internment in March 1959. Following their release, some of the interned leaders met Sean Cronin in a farmhouse in County Laois and were persuaded to continue the campaign 'to keep the flame alive' but those action were much smaller in scale than before.;;;X
EVT_8007414_A;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007414_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007415_NAME;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;;;X
EVT_8007415_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;;;X
EVT_8007415_A;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;;;X
EVT_8007415_B;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;;;X
EVT_8007415_C;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;;;X
EVT_8007416_NAME;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;;;X
EVT_8007416_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;;;X
EVT_8007416_A;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007416_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007417_NAME;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;;;X
EVT_8007417_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;;;X
EVT_8007417_A;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;;;X
EVT_8007417_B;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;;;X
EVT_8007417_C;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;;;X
EVT_8007418_NAME;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;;;X
EVT_8007418_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;;;X
EVT_8007418_A;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007418_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007419_NAME;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;;;X
EVT_8007419_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping of Ulster or will we devise some way to end the conflict and not lose our face. We can either insist on defending Ulster, give independence to the North Irish state (allowing it to join Ireland through referendum) or just give those lands to Ireland to keep the Irish calm (but not to earn support at home, to say the least).;;;X
EVT_8007419_A;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;Let's hang on this piece of land!;;;X
EVT_8007419_B;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;Devolve power to the North Irish state;;;X
EVT_8007419_C;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;Strike a deal with Ireland to transfer Ulster;;;X
EVT_8007420_NAME;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;;;X
EVT_8007420_DESC;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;;;X
EVT_8007420_A;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;;;X
EVT_8007421_NAME;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;IRA bombings of 1960;;;X
EVT_8007421_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the number of incidents in 1960 fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.;;;X
EVT_8007421_A;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007421_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007422_NAME;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;;;X
EVT_8007422_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;;;X
EVT_8007422_A;Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);;;X
EVT_8007422_B;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;;;X
EVT_8007422_C;Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8007423_NAME;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;IRA bombings of 1961;;;X
EVT_8007423_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nHistorically, the campaign was pretty much over by 1961. The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south County Armagh.;;;X
EVT_8007423_A;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;Bombing are still successful and the troubles continue;;;X
EVT_8007423_B;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;IRA is dispersed in Northern Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007424_NAME;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;Successful Border Campaign brews discontent;;;X
EVT_8007424_DESC;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;The Border Campaign (12 December 1956 – 26 February 1962) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland, with the aim of overthrowing British rule there and creating a united Ireland. The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s, when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland governments had severely weakened the IRA.\n\nActions of IRA proved to be surprisingly decisive and loss of life and morale on our side is unprecedented. Shall we continue our insistence on keeping us separate from the rest of Ireland or will we organize free and fair referendum to make end to all this discontent or will we feign defeat at once and unify with the rest of the island on their terms?;;;X
EVT_8007424_A;Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);Let's organize the referendum (possible Game Over);;;X
EVT_8007424_B;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;;;X
EVT_8007424_C;Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);Join Ireland! (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8007425_NAME;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;End of the Border Campaign;;;X
EVT_8007425_DESC;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;Historically, by late 1961, the Border Campaign was over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men, four republican supporters and six RUC members. In addition, 32 RUC members were wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in Northern Ireland, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom. That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Republic of Ireland's government closed the Curragh camp, which housed internees in the South, on 15 March 1959 (judging them to be no further threat). The Northern Irish government followed suit on 25 April 1961.\n\nAlthough it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on 26 February 1962. In a press release issued that day, the IRA Army Council stated: 'The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on 12 December 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matériel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people - the unity and freedom of Ireland.(...)' Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.;;;X
EVT_8007425_A;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;At last!;;;X
EVT_8007430_NAME;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;Referendum for Unification of Ireland;;;X
EVT_8007430_DESC;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;The Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum regarded an issue whether Northern Ireland should join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland. It was the first time that a major referendum had been held in a region of the United Kingdom.\n\nThe Unionist parties supported the status quo option, as did the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, the Alliance Party was also critical of the poll. While it supported the holding of periodic plebiscites on the constitutional link with Great Britain, the party felt that to avoid the border poll becoming a 'sectarian head count'. The civil authorities were prepared for violence on polling day. They had put in place mobile polling stations which could be rushed into use if there was bomb damage to scheduled poll buildings. Two days before the referendum a British soldier was shot dead in Belfast as the army searched for weapons and explosives which could be used to disrupt the upcoming referendum.;;;X
EVT_8007430_A;Let us be united;Let us be united;Let us be united;Let us be united;Let us be united;Let us be united;Let us be united;Let us be united;;;X
EVT_8007430_B;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;Let us be divided;;;X
EVT_8007431_NAME;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;Éire is one again!;;;X
EVT_8007431_DESC;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;The partition of Ireland (Irish: críochdheighilt na hÉireann) was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories, Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and the now Republic of Ireland, an independent state. Partition occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 creating Northern Ireland and what was then Southern Ireland. From 1801 to 1920 the whole island had formed a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Before then it was the separate Kingdom of Ireland. The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland. However, partition was reinforced in 1922 when what was intended to be Southern Ireland separated from the United Kingdom as the Irish Free State. Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state. This goal conflicted with that of unionists in Northern Ireland, whose objective is to remain part of the United Kingdom.\n\nHaving succeeded through armed actions, IRA led to organization of island-wide referendum, which ended in transferring of sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.;;;X
EVT_8007431_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8206050_NAME;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;;;X
EVT_8206050_DESC;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;;;X
EVT_8206050_A;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;;;X
EVT_8206051_NAME;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;East Indies and the Netherlands;;;X
EVT_8206051_DESC;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nThe colonial exploitation of Indonesia's wealth contributed to welfare of the Netherlands, even if its profits diminished with years. The Dutch introduced coffee, tea, cacao, tobacco and rubber and large expanses of Java became plantations cultivated by Javanese peasants, collected by Chinese intermediaries, and sold on overseas markets by European merchants. Before World War II, the Dutch East Indies produced most of the world's supply of quinine and pepper, over a third of its rubber, a quarter of its coconut products, and a fifth of its tea, sugar, coffee, and oil. The profit from the Dutch East Indies made the Netherlands one of the world's most significant colonial powers and made their oversea possessions very highly regarded.;;;X
EVT_8206051_A;We stand together again;We stand together again;We stand together again;We stand together again;We stand together again;We stand together again;We stand together again;We stand together again;;;X
EVT_8206052_NAME;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;New Guinea and the Netherlands;;;X
EVT_8206052_DESC;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;The Netherlands East Indies was a Dutch colony formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in 1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony which later formed modern-day Indonesia was one of the most valuable European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule and contributed to Dutch global prominence in spice and cash crop trade in 19th to early 20th century.\n\nTherefore, the Dutch were eager to defend their treasured possession, however events taking place in the antipodes could not always, due to logistical difficulties, find full support of the metropoly, let alone European allies. The colony, in case of war with Indonesia, can count on limited support in troops, yet the possibility of the Allies standing in full power beside the colonial troops is thin.;;;X
EVT_8206052_A;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;We are not fully protected;;;X
EVT_8007514_NAME;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;14th July Revolution;;;X
EVT_8007514_DESC;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;The 14 July Revolution was a coup which took place on 14 July 1958 in Iraq, marking the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy established by King Faisal I in 1932 under the auspices of the British. In 1958, the coup overthrew King Faisal II, the regent and Crown Prince 'Abd al-Ilah, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, all of whom were perceived as cooperating with the British. The coup established an Iraqi Republic and was a result of a number of different grievances with Hashemite Iraqi policies. One of the most salient themes that the Free Officers, the group that engineered and executed the coup, represented was anger at Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators.;;;X
EVT_8007514_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007517_NAME;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;;;X
EVT_8007517_DESC;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;;;X
EVT_8007517_A;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;;;X
EVT_8007517_B;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;This serves no purpose;;;X
EVT_8007518_NAME;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan;;;X
EVT_8007518_DESC;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;During the post-colonial years in the Arab world many forces argued for the creation of a single Arab state. Popular under the name of Arab nationalism, this tenet became increasingly popular among young intellectuals throughout the Middle East and in Iraq during the 1950s. Many different versions of Arab Nationalism arose, and developed into an Arab Cold War. Gamal Abdel Nasser's vision of a Pan-Arab state was one free of foreign and specifically European interference, land reform, socialist sympathies and dissolution of the ruling, active monarchies. For Royalist and European aligned Iraq and Jordan, Nasser's vision was incompatible with their existence. Led by Prime Minister Nuri as-Said under King Faisal II, Iraq like Jordan were Hashemite monarchies since their establishment in 1922 at the bequest of the British.\n\nIn early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union.;;;X
EVT_8007518_A;Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8007518_B;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;We shall remain independent;;;X
EVT_8007519_NAME;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;Jordan joins Arab Federation;;;X
EVT_8007519_DESC;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;In early 1958, the formation the United Arab Republic (UAR) between Syria and Egypt brought Nasser's pan-Arab ideals that threatened the existence of both Hashemite regimes, to the Western borders of Iraq. In order to counter Nasser's pan-Arabism, as-Said approached the Hashemite government of Jordan, to discuss the formation of a union while also appeasing Arab nationalists within Iraq. Officially formed on 14 February 1958, the Arab Union or Arab Federation united the foreign policy and defense functions of each country but left the vast majority of other domestic programs under national jurisdiction. Nuri as-Said became the Premier of the Arab Union. Nuri as-Said mistakenly believed the Iraqi military command would keep the King on his throne and his government in power, but he neglected to see the growing opposition in the Sunni officer corps against the regime.;;;X
EVT_8007519_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007520_NAME;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;Allied withdrawal from Iraq;;;X
EVT_8007520_DESC;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;Anglo-Iraqi War lasted from May 2 to May 31, 1941 between Iraqis and the British and their indigenous Assyrian Levies. The British would continue to occupy Iraq for many years afterwards to secure Mesopotamia as one of their economic and military bases in the Middle East. Yet, shortly after the World War 2, the direct influence over Iraqi politics waned and open occupation transformed into more intricate string-pulling, taking place until the Revolution of 1958.;;;X
EVT_8007520_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007609_NAME;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;Death of Yitzhak Ben Zvi;;;X
EVT_8007609_DESC;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;When Israel gained its independence, Ben-Zvi was among the signers of its Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He served in the First and Second Knesset for the Mapai party. He was elected President of Israel on 8 December 1952, assumed office on 16 December 1952, and continued to serve in such position until his death, being the person who held this post for the longest period of time.\n\nBen-Zvi believed that the president should set an example for the public and his home should reflect the austerity of the times. For over 26 years, he and his family lived in a wooden hut in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem. The State of Israel took interest in the adjacent house, built and owned by Nissim and Esther Valero, and purchased it, after Nissim's death, to provide additional space for the President's residence. Two larger wooden structures in the yard were used for official receptions.;;;X
EVT_8007609_A;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;;;X
EVT_8007610_NAME;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;End of the British Mandate for Palestine;;;X
EVT_8007610_DESC;The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948, However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that 'unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result.';;;X
EVT_8007610_A;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;Let's prepare a partition plan;;;X
EVT_8007611_NAME;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine;;;X
EVT_8007611_DESC;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. On 29 November, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League who were voting members at the time voted against the Plan.\n\nThe Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news. Still, the partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leaders and by most of the Arab population. Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.\n\nSome Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.'\n\nNote: Even if you ignore the plan and set up a single state for the whole Palestine, the other party will rebel, even if having smaller chance to succeed.;;;X
EVT_8007611_A;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;Agree to the partition as proposed by UN;;;X
EVT_8007611_B;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;Set up a Jewish state;;;X
EVT_8007611_C;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;Set up an Arab Palestinian state;;;X
EVT_8007611_D;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;Stay there even without a mandate;;;X
EVT_8007612_NAME;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;;;X
EVT_8007612_DESC;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;;;X
EVT_8007612_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007613_NAME;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;;;X
EVT_8007613_DESC;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;;;X
EVT_8007613_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007620_NAME;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;Independent Israel;;;X
EVT_8007620_DESC;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Israel is formed.;;;X
EVT_8007620_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007621_NAME;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;Jewish revolt;;;X
EVT_8007621_DESC;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Arab state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Jews decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;;;X
EVT_8007621_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007622_NAME;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;Independent Palestine;;;X
EVT_8007622_DESC;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;With the end of British Mandate in Palestine, the British are leaving and the independent state of Palestine is formed.;;;X
EVT_8007622_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007623_NAME;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;Arab revolt;;;X
EVT_8007623_DESC;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;In spite of the recommendations of the UN Partition Plan, the British decided to set up a single Jewish state in Palestine, to prevent quarelling over borders. However, the tensions between Jews and Arabs are far too high to bear and Arabs decide to take up arms in fight for their statehood.;;;X
EVT_8007623_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007640_NAME;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;;;X
EVT_8007640_DESC;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;;;X
EVT_8007640_A;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;;;X
EVT_8007640_B;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;;;X
EVT_8007641_NAME;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;Palestine Civil War of 1948;;;X
EVT_8007641_DESC;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;The 1948 Palestine war refers to the war that occurred in the former British Mandate of Palestine between the United Nations vote on the partition plan and the official end of the first Arab-Israeli war. At the issue of the war, the State of Israel kept most of the area that had been allocated by the UN General Assembly Resolution. Israel also took control of almost 60 percent of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state, including the Jaffa, Lydda and Ramle area, Galilee, some parts of the Negev, a wide strip along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and some territories in the West Bank. Transjordan took control of the remainder of the West Bank, putting it under military rule, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.\n\nThe Israelis refer to this period as their War of Independence or War of Liberation, because it saw the birth of the State of Israel. Their traditional historiography also sometimes makes this start on 15 May 1948. Palestinians and Arabs refer to this as al-Nakba (the catastrophe), because of the huge number of displaced people and the failure of their nationalist aspirations to create their state with their defeat in the war.;;;X
EVT_8007641_A;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;The conflict was long coming;;;X
EVT_8007641_B;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;Use all power to prevent war;;;X
EVT_8007649_NAME;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;Israeli Defense Forces;;;X
EVT_8007649_DESC;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914). The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. During World War I the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year.\n\nThe IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.\n\nThe two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.;;;X
EVT_8007649_A;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;Raise the Ink Flag!;;;X
EVT_8007650_NAME;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Egypt proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007650_DESC;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;;;X
EVT_8007650_A;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;;;X
EVT_8007650_B;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;;;X
EVT_8007651_NAME;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Transjordan proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007651_DESC;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;;;X
EVT_8007651_A;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;;;X
EVT_8007651_B;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;;;X
EVT_8007652_NAME;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Syria proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007652_DESC;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;;;X
EVT_8007652_A;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;;;X
EVT_8007652_B;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;;;X
EVT_8007653_NAME;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Lebanon proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007653_DESC;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;;;X
EVT_8007653_A;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;;;X
EVT_8007653_B;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;;;X
EVT_8007654_NAME;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;Iraq proclaims the Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007654_DESC;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. Within hours, two Egyptian columns with air cover entered southern Israel, while fighting erupted in Jerusalem and on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, where Israeli forces captured two Arab villages and the city of Acre. Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. Arab forces captured the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Etzion and massacred its inhabitants. Numerous settlements in the Negev and Galilee were isolated and exposed to Arab attack on all sides, and had to rely on their own armories for defense. The hastily mobilized Israeli Army had to engage in offensive actions to remove Arab forces from key positions, block the advance of their columns, and rush to seal gaps in Israel's defenses.\n\nOver the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. The Arab nations gradually increased the number of troops by the thousands as the war later progressed.;;;X
EVT_8007654_A;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;Join the Arab brothers;;;X
EVT_8007654_B;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;Stay out of war;;;X
EVT_8007655_NAME;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;Union of Transjordan and Palestine;;;X
EVT_8007655_DESC;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;The majority of Palestinian Arab hopes lay with the Arab Legion of Transjordan's monarch, King Abdullah I, but he had no intention of creating a Palestinian Arab-run state, since he hoped to annex as much of the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine as he could. He was playing a double-game, being just as much in contact with the Jewish authorities as with the Arab League.\n\nThe Palestinian Arabs, the neighboring Arab states, the promise of the expansion of territory and the goal to conquer Jerusalem finally pressured Abdullah into joining them in an 'all-Arab military intervention' against the newly created State of Israel on 15 May 1948, which he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders. Abdullah was especially anxious to take Jerusalem as compensation for the loss of the guardianship of Mecca, which had traditionally held by the Hashemites until Ibn Saud had seized the Hejaz in 1925. He saw himself as the 'supreme commander of the Arab forces' and 'persuaded the Arab League to appoint him' to this position.\n\nAfter conquering the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the end of the war, King Abdullah tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity. Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship.;;;X
EVT_8007655_A;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;Palestine is ours;;;X
EVT_8007660_NAME;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Arab victory in Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007660_DESC;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;Arab-Israeli War went really bad for the Jews. Arab states managed to cooperate flawlessly and with the help of Palestinian rebels managed to crush a nacent Jewish state. The possibility of creation of Israel is crushed and the Arab state of Palestine may now be formed.;;;X
EVT_8007660_A;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;Set up Palestinian government;;;X
EVT_8007660_B;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;Stay in occupied territories;;;X
EVT_8007661_NAME;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;Stalemate in Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007661_DESC;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;Arab-Israeli War, after months of assaults on each of the warring sides, came to a stalemate. Arab states fought well enough to prevent Jews from entering Arab parts of Palestine but could not gain an upper hand to force them out of Tel Aviv and other strongholds. Israel, even if its area is smaller than the Jews wanted, thus retained its independence.;;;X
EVT_8007661_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007662_NAME;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Tactical Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007662_DESC;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;After initial period of surprise, Arab advance was stopped by Israeli troops. Arab states failed to cooperate successfully nor to make good use of Palestinian rebels on the enemy's territory. Forces of the newly independent Israel pushed Arabs back and brought the conflict onto ethnically Arab lands. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with more land than they originally were promised by the UN Partition Plan.;;;X
EVT_8007662_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007663_NAME;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;Total Jewish victory in Arab-Israeli War;;;X
EVT_8007663_DESC;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;Contrary to Arab plans, Israel not only did not collapse under coordinated assault but managed to pull off a brilliant counterattack. Assaulting divisions were crushed by patriotic Jew fighters and the very existence of surrounding states came into danger. It's time to end the war and reward Jews with the whole area of Palestine to satisfy their settlement needs.;;;X
EVT_8007663_A;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;Settle for our demands;;;X
EVT_8007663_B;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;Strive for Greater Israel!;;;X
EVT_8007670_NAME;Law of Return;Law of Return;Law of Return;Law of Return;Law of Return;Law of Return;Law of Return;Law of Return;;;X
EVT_8007670_DESC;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950. The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: 'Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.' Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.\n\nThe law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).\n\nIn the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's 'credo' as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.;;;X
EVT_8007670_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007704_NAME;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;Italian Constitutional Referendum;;;X
EVT_8007704_DESC;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;A constitutional referendum was held in Italy on 2 June 1946, a key event of Italian contemporary history. Until 1946, Italy was a kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. However, Benito Mussolini, enjoying the support of the reigning monarch, imposed fascism after the 28 October 1922 March on Rome, eventually engaging Italy in World War II alongside Nazi Germany. King Victor Emmanuel III, and to the extent the whole house of Savoy, was compromised by recent history, particularly acquiescence to Mussolini’s demand that the government be handed over to the Fascists.\n\nThe political campaign for the referendum was framed by incidents, especially in northern Italy, where monarchists were fought by both republicans and post-fascists of the Italian Social Republic. Following a second decree, during the government of De Gasperi, a referendum was held on 2 June and 3 June 1946 (2 June later was named as a national holiday). The question was as simple as possible: Republic or Monarchy.\n\nFollowing Italian law, the results were checked by the Corte di Cassazione (the highest judicial Court at that time), as expected. A problem arose when the Court, itself divided between monarchists and republicans, provisionally declared the republican victory on 10 June, but postponing the final result to 18 June. To avoid huge dangers of political riots due to the Court's irresponsible delay, the government declared itself the republic and appointed De Gasperi as the provisional Head of State on 13 June.;;;X
EVT_8007704_A;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;Replace monarchy with republican rule;;;X
EVT_8007704_B;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;Remain loyal to the House of Savoy;;;X
EVT_8007717_NAME;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;Salerno Turn;;;X
EVT_8007717_DESC;"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";"In 1944 Togliatti returned to Italy, and led his PCI and other political forces to the so-called svolta di Salerno, the 'Salerno Turn'. This was a compromise between antifascist parties, the monarchy and prime minister Pietro Badoglio to set up a government of national unity and to postpone institutional questions. The PCI committed to supporting democracy and to abandon the armed struggle for the cause of Socialism. In effect, the turn moved the party to the right, in contrast with many demands from within; it also meant the disarmament of those members of the Italian resistance movement that had been organized by the PCI (the Garibaldi Brigades). Togliatti briefly served as Justice Minister.";;;X
EVT_8007717_A;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;Cooperate with the king;;;X
EVT_8007717_B;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;No dealings with reactionaries!;;;X
EVT_8007718_NAME;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;Popular Democratic Front;;;X
EVT_8007718_DESC;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;The Popular Democratic Front was a coalition of Italian political parties for the Parliamentary election of 1948. It consisted of Italian Communist Party and Italian Socialist Party. Its symbol was the picture of Italian Unification hero Giuseppe Garibaldi within a star. The Christian Social Party and the Sardinian Action Party were not allied with the coalition, and formed their own lists. The right wing of PSI opposed the Front, left the party, and funded the alternatite democratic list of Socialist Unity, which later became the Italian Democratic Socialist Party.\n\nThe elections of 1948 was maybe the most important one in Italian republican history, future alliance with United States or with Soviet Union being in game. The Popular Front managed to obtain 31.0 percent of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies and 30.9 percent of the vote for the Senate: the Christian Democracy party proved to be too strong in both cases. Following the defeat of the Front, Italy became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.;;;X
EVT_8007718_A;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;This is our chance!;;;X
EVT_8007718_B;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;No dealings with social-democrats.;;;X
EVT_8007719_NAME;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;Togliatti assassination attempt;;;X
EVT_8007719_DESC;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;On 14 July 1948, Togliatti was shot three times, being severely wounded — his life hung in the balance for days and news about his condition was uncertain, causing an acute political crisis in Italy (which included a general strike called by the Italian General Confederation of Labour).;;;X
EVT_8007719_A;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;The attempt ultimately fails;;;X
EVT_8007719_B;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;Togliatti is dead but his movement lives on!;;;X
EVT_8007719_C;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;Togliatti is dead and communists are dispersed;;;X
EVT_8007721_NAME;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;Italian Communist Party in 1950s;;;X
EVT_8007721_DESC;"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";"In 1950s, the PCI became the second largest party in Italy, and the largest non-ruling communist party in Europe. Although permanently in the opposition at the national level during Togliatti's lifetime, the party ran many municipalities and held great power at the local and regional level in certain areas. In 1953, he fought against the so-called 'cheat or swindle law', an electoral one voted by the Christian Democracy-led majority of the time, which aimed at using first past the post to augment the center-right's power. Ultimately, the law was to prove of no use for the government in the elections of that year, which won Togliatti's PCI 22.6 percent of the vote; it was repealed in November 1953.\n\nDespite his allegedly tight relationship with Soviet Union, Togliatti's leadership remained unscathed after the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which was everywhere else a cause for major conflicts within the left). He coined the development of the polycentrism theory (unity in diversity within the communist parties in all countries). In the 1958 elections, the number of Communist votes was still on the rise. In the 1963 elections, the PCI gained 25.2 percent of the votes, but again failed to reach a relative majority.";;;X
EVT_8007721_A;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;;;X
EVT_8007721_B;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;;;X
EVT_8007721_C;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;;;X
EVT_8007722_NAME;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;Italian Communist Party in 1960s;;;X
EVT_8007722_DESC;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;In 1964, after the death of Palmiro Togliatti, Luigi Longo became secretary of the PCI, declaring that he was 'a secretary, not a boss'. In this role, he continued Togliatti's line, known as the 'Italian road to Socialism', playing down the alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He reacted without hostility to the new left movements that sprung up in 1968 and, among the leaders of the PCI, was one of those most disposed to engage with the new activists, although he did not condone their excesses.;;;X
EVT_8007722_A;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;ICP retains its course;;;X
EVT_8007722_B;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;ICP radicalizes;;;X
EVT_8007722_C;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;ICP is dispersed!;;;X
EVT_8007723_NAME;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;Delegalization of Italian Communist Party;;;X
EVT_8007723_DESC;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;Radicalization of actions of ICP in the latest years brought ire on communist activitsts from the government and right-wing portion of the population alike, with the full support of Western powers. By their concerted action they managed to outlaw the communist party and squash subsequent dissent, negating the possibility of eventual communist takeover in our country!;;;X
EVT_8007723_A;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;For God and our country!;;;X
EVT_8007730_NAME;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;Radicalization of Italian Communist Party;;;X
EVT_8007730_DESC;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;Challenges of ICP are towering and the local key politicians and their advisors in Moscow feel that continuation of light-handed approach is untenable. Red-shirted activists will be brought onto streets, strikes will ensue and it is going to be clear to anyone that communists are determined to bring dictatorship of the masses to Italy too.;;;X
EVT_8007730_A;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;Workers of the Italy, unite!;;;X
EVT_8007731_NAME;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;Dispersion of Italian Communist Party;;;X
EVT_8007731_DESC;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;The times are rough for ICP as waning popular support and hardline stance of the government brought marginalization of this party in Italian politics. From now on, communist in various local parties and trade unions may try to wield some influence but a unified communist movement in Italy is no more.;;;X
EVT_8007731_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007732_NAME;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;Italian Communist Party at helm;;;X
EVT_8007732_DESC;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;Despite machinations of right-wing opponents in the government and capitalist circles in the Western powers, Italian Communist Party managed to radicalize itself, with blessing from Moscow, and squash their opponents in recent elections. Communists claimed that once they gain power, they will not renounce it peacefully. Now we are one step from announcing establishment of communist one-party state - for the good of all the workers in Italy.;;;X
EVT_8007732_A;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;It will be union of all the workers;;;X
EVT_8007733_NAME;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;Hardline communists gain power in Italy;;;X
EVT_8007733_DESC;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;Very recently, radical communists gathered in Italian Communist Party won so much support that they run now the Italian government. This opportunity is too much for communists to pass by and majority of voices within the party and among the party's 'advisors' abroad call for delegalization of other parties and establishing a communist state. This will surely push Italy out of our sphere of influence. Shall we intervene and sponsor a right-wing coup in our ally state?;;;X
EVT_8007733_A;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;Sponsor a coup;;;X
EVT_8007733_B;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;Let Italians have their way;;;X
EVT_8007734_NAME;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;Right-wing coup to happen in Italy;;;X
EVT_8007734_DESC;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;Our intelligence reports the recent electoral victory of Italian Communist Party in their country did not bring good reactions among capitalist government with United States administration quickly assembling means (military forces, mostly) to overthrow new Italian government. They seem to be so determined to push communism out of Italy that they can put worldwide conflict on table. Shall we react anyway and send an ultimatum to Washington?;;;X
EVT_8007734_A;Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);Send ultimatum (high chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8007734_B;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;;;X
EVT_8007735_NAME;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;USSR will support Italian Communist Party;;;X
EVT_8007735_DESC;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;Assembling our intelligence measures and military forces within vicinity of Italy, we receive a message for Moscow, urging us to stop our meddling in internal affairs of Italy. USSR is determined to stop our actions at all costs, up to including taking military action. Is Italy so precious to us to go to world war?;;;X
EVT_8007735_A;It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);It's war then (WW3);;;X
EVT_8007735_B;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;Italy is lost to us;;;X
EVT_8007736_NAME;Italian Union;Italian Union;Italian Union;Italian Union;Italian Union;Italian Union;Italian Union;Italian Union;;;X
EVT_8007736_DESC;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;Feeling support of the population and communists worldwide, key leaders of Italian Communist Party addressed today to the large crowd their victory speech. Over the following months, non-collaborating parties will be delegalized, free trade unions brought to line with the government-sponsored ones and freedom of press curbed. In a few years, Italy will become people's democracy and there is little choice the people of Italy will have.;;;X
EVT_8007736_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007737_NAME;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;American-sponsored coup;;;X
EVT_8007737_DESC;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;While Italian Communist Party leaders prepared themselves for post-electoral celebrations and announcements of radical societal changes to come, events turned dire to them, with large masses of military approaching cities. Among local troops, American equipment and units are seen in large numbers, ensuring proper firepower and determination of wavering Italian army. Within hours, communist leaders are jailed, many local activists come into hiding in fear of arrest. Western powers resorted to force in ending workers' dream in Italy, even before it started.;;;X
EVT_8007737_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007814_NAME;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;Postwar Constitution;;;X
EVT_8007814_DESC;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;The Japanese constitution of 1947, also known as the 'Postwar Constitution' or the 'Peace Constitution', was most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy. The constitution provided for a parliamentary system of government and guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is 'the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people' and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.\n\nThe constitution was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace Japan's previous militaristic and absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy. It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity would be maintained. Thus the 1946 constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document.;;;X
EVT_8007814_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007815_NAME;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;End of American occupation;;;X
EVT_8007815_DESC;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;In 1949, MacArthur made a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968). Even though some 31,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Japan today, they are there at the invitation of the Japanese government under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and not as an occupying force.;;;X
EVT_8007815_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007816_NAME;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security;;;X
EVT_8007816_DESC;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed between the United States and Japan in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 1960. It strengthened Japan's ties to the West during the Cold War era. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and on improved future economic cooperation.;;;X
EVT_8007816_A;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;Sign the treaty;;;X
EVT_8007816_B;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;We don't need protection;;;X
EVT_8007905_NAME;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;Rule of King Abdullah I;;;X
EVT_8007905_DESC;"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";"In the final days of World War I, when French forces captured Damascus at the Battle of Maysalun and expelled his brother Faisal, Abdullah moved his forces from Hejaz into Transjordan with a view to liberating Damascus, where his brother had been proclaimed King in 1918. Having heard of Abdullah's plans, Winston Churchill invited Abdullah to a famous 'tea party' where he convinced Abdullah to stay put and not attack Britain's allies, the French.  Abdullah acquiesced and was rewarded when the British created a protectorate for him, which later became a state; Transjordan. He embarked on negotiations with the British to gain independence, resulting in the announcement of the Emirate of Transjordan’s independence on 25 May 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (renamed simply Jordan in 1949).";;;X
EVT_8007905_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8007909_NAME;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;Assassination of Abdullah I;;;X
EVT_8007909_DESC;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;On 20 July 1951, Abdullah, while visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was shot dead by 'a Palestinian from the Husseini clan.' On 16 July, Riad Bey al-Solh, a former Prime Minister of Lebanon, had been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel. The assassin passed through apparently heavy security. Abdullah was in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral and for a prearranged meeting with Reuven Shiloah and Moshe Sasson.\n\nAbdullah was shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein. The Palestinian gunman, motivated by fears that the old king would make a separate peace with Israel, fired three fatal bullets into the King's head and chest. Abdullah's grandson, Prince Hussein, was at his side and was hit too. A medal that had been pinned to Hussein's chest at his grandfather's insistence deflected the bullet and saved his life.\n\nOnce Hussein became king, the assassination of Abdullah was said to have influenced Hussein not to enter peace talks with Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in order to avoid a similar fate.;;;X
EVT_8007909_A;A tragic day;A tragic day;A tragic day;A tragic day;A tragic day;A tragic day;A tragic day;A tragic day;;;X
EVT_8007910_NAME;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;Abdication of Talal I;;;X
EVT_8007910_DESC;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;Talal ascended the Jordanian throne after the assassination of his father, Abdullah I, in Jerusalem. His son, Hussein, who was accompanying his grandfather at Friday prayers was also a near victim. During his short reign he was responsible for the formation of a liberalized constitution for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which made the government collectively, and the ministers individually, responsible before the Jordanian Parliament. The constitution was ratified on 1 January 1952. King Talal is also judged as having done much to smooth the previously strained relations between Jordan and the neighboring Arab states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.\n\nTalal's reign was ended when he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son Hussein due to health reasons (reported as schizophrenia) on 11 August 1952.;;;X
EVT_8007910_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8008106_NAME;April Revolution;April Revolution;April Revolution;April Revolution;April Revolution;April Revolution;April Revolution;April Revolution;;;X
EVT_8008106_DESC;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;The April Revolution, sometimes called the April 19 Revolution or April 19 Movement, was a popular uprising in April 1960, led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the peaceful resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic. The events were touched off by the discovery of a body in Masan Harbor, that of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March.;;;X
EVT_8008106_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8008107_NAME;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;5.16 Coup;;;X
EVT_8008107_DESC;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;The May Coup d'État was a military coup d'état carried out in South Korea by major general Park Chung-Hee and his subordinate officers on May 16, 1961. He justified his coup in the name of bringing the stability to the society and implementing the anti-communism policy. The civilian government (Second Republic of South Korea) which had been established by April Revolution, 1960 was overthrown by this coup. After this coup, the military junta, called Supreme Council for National Reconstruction took power and began to implement the national reconstruction policy.\n\nAt the same time, they abolished democratic reforms of the civilian government and abridged the basic rights of people in the name of preventing communists from making social confusion. After 3 years of the junta administration, the constitution of Third Republic of South Korea was enacted. After May Coup, the military government ruled South Korea for the next several decades (until 1993).;;;X
EVT_8008107_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8008410_NAME;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;Death of Sisavang Vong;;;X
EVT_8008410_DESC;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;In 1954 king Sisavang Vong celebrated his Golden Jubilee, becoming the longest-reigning king in Asia until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who surpassed his reign in 2001. When he became ill, he made his son Crown Prince Savang Vatthana regent. His son succeeded him on his death in 1959. He was cremated and buried in Wat That Luang in 1961, and during his funeral procession was transported by the royal funeral carriage, a 12-meter-high wooden hearse with a carved seven-headed serpent. Many representatives were at the state funeral including Prince Bhanubandhu, who represented Thailand.;;;X
EVT_8008410_A;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;;;X
EVT_8008411_NAME;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;Captain Kong Le's Coup;;;X
EVT_8008411_DESC;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;On August 9, Kong Le led the Second Paratroop Battalion in a nearly bloodless coup. In taking over Vientiane, the paratroopers had unwittingly chosen a moment when the entire cabinet was in Luang Phrabang conferring with King Sri Savang Vatthana. They informed their compatriots and the outside world by broadcasting their communiqués on the radio. In a rally at the city football stadium on August 11, Kong Le expanded on his goals: end the fighting in Laos, stem corruption, and establish a policy of peace and neutrality. Recalling the experience of the first coalition when the country was temporarily at peace, Kong Le asked for the nomination of Souvanna Phouma as prime minister.\n\nOn August 11, General Ouane Rattikone, as the cabinet's envoy, arrived in Vientiane from Louang Phrabang. After negotiations with Kong Le and Souvanna Phouma, Ouan returned to Louang Phrabang with a document in which the coup leaders requested the cabinet to return. Fearing violence in Vientiane, the premier, Prince Somsanith Vongkotrattana, resigned, and the King named Souvanna Phouma prime minister. The new government was invested by thirty-four deputies on August 16. The next day, Kong Le declared his coup over and vacated the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.;;;X
EVT_8008411_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8008412_NAME;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;Kong Le's Coup is defeated;;;X
EVT_8008412_DESC;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;General Phoumi Nosavan then went to Thailand and with the help of its dictator, his mentor Sarit Dhanarajata, returned to Laos to establish a competing capital in Savannakhet. Phoumi proceeded to attack Vientiane, weakened by a Thai blockade, on September 18 but the neutralists with the help of the Pathet Lao and the Soviet Union, repulsed the attack. A coalition government was formed between neutralists, communists and rightists on November 18, 1960. On December 8, Souvanna Phouma relieved Kong Le from his command, but the next day Kong Le deposed Souvanna Phouma (who flew to Phnom Penh with Prince Boun Om and his other ministers) and the leftist minister Quinim Pholsena was appointed premier. A few days later Phoumi took Vientiane and installed Boun Oum as premier. ;;;X
EVT_8008412_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009111_NAME;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;Independent Madagascar;;;X
EVT_8009111_DESC;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;In 1947, with French prestige at a low ebb, the French government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Ramadier of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party, suppressed the Madagascar revolt, a nationalist uprising. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Malagasy were killed during a year of bitter fighting. The French subsequently established reformed institutions in 1956 under the Loi Cadre (Overseas Reform Act), and Madagascar moved peacefully toward independence. \n\nThe Malagasy Republic, proclaimed on October 14, 1958, became an autonomous state within the French Community. On 26 March 1960 France agreed to Madagascar becoming fully independent. Rule of the first president, Tsiranana, represented continuation, with French settlers (or colons) still in positions of power. Unlike many of France's former colonies, the Malagasy Republic strongly resisted movements towards communism.;;;X
EVT_8009111_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009211_NAME;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;Independence of Mali;;;X
EVT_8009211_DESC;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;On April 4, 1959, French Sudan was joined with Senegal to form the Sudanese Republic, which became fully independent within the French Community on June 20, 1960. The federation collapsed on August 20, 1960, when Senegal seceded. On September 22, Sudan proclaimed itself the Republic of Mali and withdrew from the French Community.\n\nPresident Modibo Keita, whose Union Soudanaise du Rassemblement Democratique Africain (US/RDA) party had dominated preindependence politics, moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita also had close ties to the Eastern bloc. A continuously deteriorating economy led to a decision to rejoin the Franc Zone in 1967 and modify some of the economic excesses.;;;X
EVT_8009211_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009212_NAME;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;Union of Mali;;;X
EVT_8009212_DESC;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;In January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence.;;;X
EVT_8009212_A;Let them separate;Let them separate;Let them separate;Let them separate;Let them separate;Let them separate;Let them separate;Let them separate;;;X
EVT_8009212_B;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;Keep unity at all cost;;;X
EVT_8009213_NAME;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;Leftist policies;;;X
EVT_8009213_DESC;"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";"Modibo Keita, as a socialist, he led his country towards the progressive socialization of the economy; at first starting with agriculture and trade, then on October 1960 creating the SOMIEX (Malian Import and Export Company), which had a monopoly over the exports of the products of Mali, as well as manufactured and food imports (e.g. sugar, tea, powdered milk) and their distribution inside the country. The establishment of the Malian franc in 1962, and the difficulties of provisioning, resulted in a severe inflation and dissatisfaction of the population, particularly the peasants and the businessmen.";;;X
EVT_8009213_A;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;Introduce these policies;;;X
EVT_8009213_B;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;Remain on the current course;;;X
EVT_8009504_NAME;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;El Milagro Mexicano;;;X
EVT_8009504_DESC;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;Mexico experienced impressive economic growth (albeit from a low baseline), an achievement historians call 'El Milagro Mexicano', the Mexican Economic Miracle. Annual economic growth during this period averaged 3–4 percent, with a modest 3-percent annual rate of inflation.;;;X
EVT_8009504_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009704_NAME;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;Assassination of High Commissioner Henry Gurney;;;X
EVT_8009704_DESC;"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";"On 6 October 1951, High Commissioner Henry Gurney was shot to death on his way to Fraser's Hill for a meeting; the guerrillas of the Malayan Communist Party ambushed his Rolls Royce during the Malayan Emergency period. According to Lady Gurney who was with him at the time, he sacrificed himself to the attackers in order to protect the lives of his wife and the driver.\n\nAccording to Communist leader Chin Peng, the ambush was routine, the killing by chance, and the guerrillas only learned the High Commissioner was among the dead from news reports.\n\nOn his tombstone there is an inscription: 'In proud and loving memory of Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney K.C.M.G. High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya 1948–1951 Born 27 June 1898 Died 6 October 1951 Greater Love Hath No Man Than This That A Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends R.I.P.'";;;X
EVT_8009704_A;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;;;X
EVT_8009709_NAME;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;Malayan Emergency;;;X
EVT_8009709_DESC;The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.\n\nThe Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it the Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term 'emergency' since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a 'war.';;;X
EVT_8009709_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009710_NAME;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;;;X
EVT_8009710_DESC;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;;;X
EVT_8009710_A;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;;;X
EVT_8009710_B;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;;;X
EVT_8009711_NAME;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;Singapore joins the Federation;;;X
EVT_8009711_DESC;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;Despite their successes in governing Singapore, the People's Action Party leaders, including Lee and Goh, believed that Singapore's future lay with Malaya. They felt that the historical and economic ties between Singapore and Malaya were too strong for them to continue as separate nations, and they campaigned vigorously for a merger. On the other hand, the sizable pro-communist wing of the PAP were strongly opposed to the merger, fearing a loss of influence as the ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and would support the non-communist faction of PAP against them. The UMNO leaders were also skeptical of the merger idea due to their distrust of the PAP government and concerns that the large Chinese population in Singapore would alter the racial balance on which their political power base depended.\n\nFaced with the prospect of a takeover by the pro-communists, UMNO did an about-face on the merger. On 27 May, Malaya's Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, mooted the idea of a Federation of Malaysia, comprising existing Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei and the British Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak. The UMNO leaders believed that the additional Malay population in the Borneo territories would offset Singapore's Chinese population. On 9 July 1963, the leaders of Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak signed the Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation of Malaysia.;;;X
EVT_8009711_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009712_NAME;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;Federation of Malaysia;;;X
EVT_8009712_DESC;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;;;X
EVT_8009712_A;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;Join the Federation;;;X
EVT_8009712_B;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;Remain independent;;;X
EVT_8009713_NAME;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;Sarawak joins the Federation;;;X
EVT_8009713_DESC;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;The issue of self-determination with respect to the peoples of North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the bedrock of yet another challenge to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. Under the Joint Statement issued by the British and Malayan Federal Governments on 23 November 1961, clause 4 provided for honoring the views of the peoples. In the spirit of ensuring that decolonization was carried in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of North Borneo, the British Government, working with the Federation of Malaya Government, appointed a Commission of Enquiry for North Borneo and Sarawak in January 1962 to determine if the people supported the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia. The five-man team, which comprised two Malayans and three British representatives, was headed by Lord Cameron Cobbold. After long deliberations, Sarawak was officially granted independence on 22 July 1963, and joined with in the federation of Malaysia, formed on 16 September 1963, despite the initial opposition from parts of the population.;;;X
EVT_8009713_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009714_NAME;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;;;X
EVT_8009714_DESC;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;;;X
EVT_8009714_A;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;Stir the conflict up;;;X
EVT_8009714_B;It's pointless;It's pointless;It's pointless;It's pointless;It's pointless;It's pointless;It's pointless;It's pointless;;;
EVT_8009715_NAME;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;;;X
EVT_8009715_DESC;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower. The British and Malaysian Armed Forces provided a significant element of the effort with no small parts being played by the other member nations (Australia and New Zealand) from the combined Far East Strategic Reserve stationed then in West Malaysia and Singapore. Initial Indonesian attacks into East Malaysia relied heavily on local volunteers trained by the Indonesian Army. The main military forces backing Malaysia were British and initially their activities were low key. However, the British responded to increased Indonesian activity by expanding their own.;;;X
EVT_8009715_A;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;Defend Borneo at all costs!;;;X
EVT_8009715_B;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;Rely on our self-defence forces;;;X
EVT_8009716_NAME;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;;;X
EVT_8009716_DESC;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided to send the bulk of their forces and cooperate with British squads which meant that our position on Borneo was poor from the very start of the campaign.;;;X
EVT_8009716_A;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;;;X
EVT_8009716_B;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;;;X
EVT_8009717_NAME;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation;;;X
EVT_8009717_DESC;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;The Indonesian–Malaysian Confrontation during 1962–1966 was Indonesia's political and armed opposition to the creation of Malaysia. It is also known by its Indonesian/Malay name Konfrontasi.\n\nThe confrontation was an undeclared war with most of the action in the border area between Indonesia and East Malaysia on the island of Borneo (known as Kalimantan in Indonesia). However, Sabah and Sarawak were ethnically, religiously and politically diverse and there was some local opposition to joining Malaysia that Indonesia attempted to exploit. As the terrain in Borneo was challenging and there were very few roads, both sides relied on light infantry operations and air transport, although rivers were also used. There was almost no use of offensive airpower.\n\nMalaya decided not to send any significant forces which gave us some hope in the success of the campaign.;;;X
EVT_8009717_A;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;We failed;;;X
EVT_8009717_B;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;Borneo is ours!;;;X
EVT_8009803_NAME;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;Collectivization of livestock;;;X
EVT_8009803_DESC;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;The post-war years also saw the acceleration of the drive towards creating a socialist society. In the 1950s, livestock was collectivized again. At the same time, state farms were established, and, with extensive aid of Russia and China, infrastructure projects like the Trans-Mongolian Railway were completed.;;;X
EVT_8009803_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8009804_NAME;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;Mongolia in Sino-Soviet split;;;X
EVT_8009804_DESC;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;Mongolia initially kept good relations with both of her neighbours, but after the Sino-Soviet split, she attached herself firmly with the Soviet Union. In the 1960s, projects like Darkhan was built with aid from Russia and other COMECON countries.;;;X
EVT_8009804_A;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;Stand beside USSR;;;X
EVT_8009804_B;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;Stay with Chinese;;;X
EVT_8009915_NAME;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;;;X
EVT_8009915_DESC;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;;;X
EVT_8009915_A;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;;;X
EVT_8009915_B;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;Hold onto our colonies!;;;X
EVT_8009916_NAME;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;Tanger Protocol;;;X
EVT_8009916_DESC;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;In the history of Morocco, the Tangier Protocol was an agreement signed between France, Spain and the United Kingdom by which Tangier, Morocco became an international zone.\n\nThe protocol was signed in 1925. Starting from 1929, Spain assumed the policing of the city. An international legislative body was created to govern the city. Spain occupied Tangier from 1940 to 1945 taking advantage of France's occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. The status of the international zone remained until its 29 October 1956 reintegration with Morocco, following the establishment of that country's independence and sovereignty earlier that year.;;;X
EVT_8009916_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8010303_NAME;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;Beginnings of democratization;;;X
EVT_8010303_DESC;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;Popular dissatisfaction against the family rule of the Ranas had started emerging from among the few educated people, who had studied in various Indian schools and colleges, and also from within the Ranas, many of whom were marginalised within the ruling Rana hierarchy. Many of these Nepalese in exile had actively taken part in the Indian Independence struggle and wanted to liberate Nepal as well from the internal autocratic Rana occupation.\n\nTurmoil culminated in King Tribhuvan, a direct descendant of Prithvi Narayan Shah, fleeing from his 'palace prison' in 1950, to newly independent India, touching off an armed revolt against the Rana administration. This eventually ended in the return of the Shah family to power and the appointment of a non-Rana as prime minister. A period of quasi-constitutional rule followed, during which the monarch, assisted by the leaders of fledgling political parties, governed the country. During the 1950s, efforts were made to frame a constitution for Nepal that would establish a representative form of government, based on a British model.;;;X
EVT_8010303_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8010310_NAME;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;Panchayat system;;;X
EVT_8010310_DESC;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;In early 1959, Tribhuvan's son King Mahendra issued a new constitution, and the first democratic elections for a national assembly were held. The Nepali Congress Party, a moderate socialist group, gained a substantial victory in the election. Its leader, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, formed a government and served as prime minister.\n\nAfter years of power wrangling between the kings (Tribhuvan and Mahendra) and the government, Mahendra dissolved the democratic experiment in 1960. Declaring parliamentary democracy a failure, King Mahendra carried out a royal coup 18 months later, in 1960. He dismissed the elected Koirala government, declared that a 'partyless' panchayat system would govern Nepal, and promulgated another new constitution on December 16, 1960. Subsequently, the elected Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and hundreds of democratic activists were arrested.\n\nThe new constitution established a 'partyless' system of panchayats (councils) which King Mahendra considered to be a democratic form of government, closer to Nepalese traditions. As a pyramidal structure, progressing from village assemblies to a Rastriya Panchayat (National Parliament), the panchayat system constitutionalised the absolute power of the monarchy and kept the King as head of state with sole authority over all governmental institutions, including the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) and the Parliament. One-state-one-language became the national policy in an effort to carry out state unification, uniting various ethnic and regional groups into a singular Nepali nationalist bond.;;;X
EVT_8010310_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8010311_NAME;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;Death of King Tribhuvan;;;X
EVT_8010311_DESC;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;Popular discontent and the British withdrawal from India in 1947 had made Rana rule increasingly untenable. In 1950 the political situation had deteriorated so far that the personal safety of the royals was in doubt. Tribhuvan and most of his family escaped to India. Open revolt ensued and by the end of the year the Ranas agreed to a coalition government under Tribhuvan in which they shared power equally with the Nepali Congress Party. By the end of the year the Ranas were maneuvered out and Nepal's first experiment with democratic government under constitutional monarchy was underway, however Tribhuvan's health was poor and he died in 1955.\n\nMahendra, who succeeded Tribhuvan as king of Nepal, was crowned on May 2, 1956.;;;X
EVT_8010311_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8010403_NAME;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;Assassination of Somoza;;;X
EVT_8010403_DESC;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;In 1955, the constitution was amended to allow Anastasio Somoza to run for another term. Shortly after being nominated, he was shot on 21 September 1956 by the poet Rigoberto López Pérez in the city of León, and died several days later after being sent to a Panama Canal Zone hospital. His older son, Luis Somoza, succeeded him.\n\nSomoza's sons, Luis Somoza and Anastasio Somoza Debayle, ruled the country directly or through figurehead politicians for the next 23 years. Despite widespread corruption and repression of dissent, they were able to hold onto power because the United States viewed them as anti-communist stalwarts and a source of stability. His daughter Lillian Somoza Debayle, born in León, Nicaragua, on 3 May 1921, married Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States during his brother in law's rule. He also had a son, by an unknown mother, named José R. Somoza. He is entombed at Cementerio Occidental with his oldest son in the National Guard Mausoleum in Managua, Nicaragua.;;;X
EVT_8010403_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8010507_NAME;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;Independence of Nigeria;;;X
EVT_8010507_DESC;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;Following World War II, in response to the growth of Nigerian nationalism and demands for independence, successive constitutions legislated by the British Government moved Nigeria toward self-government on a representative and increasingly federal basis. On 1 October 1954, the colony became the autonomous Federation of Nigeria. By the middle of the 20th century, the great wave for independence was sweeping across Africa. On 27 October 1958 Britain agreed that Nigeria would become an independent state on 1 October 1960.\n\nThe Federation of Nigeria was granted full independence on the 1st October 1960 under a constitution that provided for a parliamentary government and a substantial measure of self-government for the country's three regions. From 1959 to 1960, Jaja Wachuku was the First black Speaker of the Nigerian Parliament - also called the 'House of Representatives'. Jaja Wachuku replaced Sir Frederick Metcalfe of Britain. Notably, as First Speaker of the House, Jaja Wachuku received Nigeria's Instrument of Independence - also known as Freedom Charter - on October 1, 1960, from Princess Alexandra of Kent, The Queen's representative at the Nigerian independence ceremonies.;;;X
EVT_8010507_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8010605_NAME;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;Death of Haakon VII;;;X
EVT_8010605_DESC;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygd?y in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the King's thighbone and, although there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the King was left using a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to have been depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events. With Haakon's loss of mobility, and as the King's health deteriorated further in the summer of 1957, Crown Prince Olav appeared on behalf of his father on ceremonial occasions and took a more active role in state affairs.\n\nAt Haakon's death in September 1957, the Crown Prince succeeded as Olav V. Haakon was buried on 1 October 1957. He and Maud rest in the white sarcophagus in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Fortress.;;;X
EVT_8010605_A;Long live the King;Long live the King;Long live the King;Long live the King;Long live the King;Long live the King;Long live the King;Long live the King;;;X
EVT_8010802_NAME;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;;;X
EVT_8010802_DESC;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;;;X
EVT_8010802_A;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;Fight with the Imam!;;;X
EVT_8010802_B;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;Bow to his authority;;;X
EVT_8010803_NAME;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;Conflict with Imamate of Oman;;;X
EVT_8010803_DESC;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were tensions between the sultan in Muscat and the Ibadi Imam in Nizwa. This conflict was resolved temporarily by the Treaty of Seeb, which granted the imam rule in the interior Imamate of Oman, while recognising the sovereignty of the sultan in Muscat and its surroundings.\n\nIn 1954, the conflict flared up again, when the Treaty of Seeb was broken by the sultan after oil was discovered in the lands of the Imam. The new imam (Ghalib bin Ali) led a 5-year rebellion against the sultan's attack. The Sultan was aided by the colonial British forces and the Shah of Iran. In the early 1960s, the Imam, exiled to Saudi Arabia, obtained support from his hosts and other Arab governments, but this support ended in the 1980s. The case of the Imam was argued at the United Nations as well, but no significant measures were taken.;;;X
EVT_8010803_A;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;We prevailed!;;;X
EVT_8010803_B;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;The imam was tougher than we thought;;;X
EVT_8011006_NAME;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;Independence of Pakistan;;;X
EVT_8011006_DESC;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;Pakistani movement towards independence was spearheaded by the Pakistan Movement which refers to the historical action to have an independent Muslim state named Pakistan created from the separation of the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, partitioned within or outside the British Indian Empire. It had its origins in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (present day Uttar Pradesh). Muslims there were a minority, yet their elite had a disproportionate amount of representation in the civil service and a strong degree of overall influence of culture and literature. The idea of Pakistan spread from Northern India through the Muslim diaspora of this region, and spread outwards to the Muslim communities of the rest of India. The movement was led by lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, along with other prominent political figures such as Allama Iqbal, Liaqat Ali Khan, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Aga Khan III, Fatima Jinnah, Bahadur Yar Jung, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmed.\n\nThe movement ultimately achieved success in 1947, when part of northwest India was partitioned, granted independence and renamed Pakistan.;;;X
EVT_8011006_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8011007_NAME;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;Death of Ali Jinnah;;;X
EVT_8011007_DESC;"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";"Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Muslim lawyer, politician, statesman, was the founder of Pakistan. He is popularly and officially known in Pakistan as Quaid-e-Azam ('Great Leader') and Baba-e-Qaum ('Father of the Nation').\n\nThrough the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis; only his sister and a few others close to him were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had put upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat. According to his sister, he suffered a hemorrhage on September 1, 1948; doctors said the altitude was not good for him and that he should be taken to Karachi. Jinnah was flown back to Karachi from Quetta. Jinnah died at 10:20 p.m. at the Governor-General's House in Karachi on September 11, 1948, just over a year after Pakistan's creation.\n\nIt is said that when the viceroy of India at that point of time, Lord Louis Mountbatten, learned of Jinnah's ailment he said 'had they known that Jinnah was about to die, they'd have postponed India's independence by a few months as he was being inflexible on Pakistan'.\n\nJinnah was buried in Karachi. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum, Mazar-e-Quaid, in Karachi to honour him.";;;X
EVT_8011007_A;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;The Great Father walks away;;;X
EVT_8011014_NAME;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;New capital of Islamabad;;;X
EVT_8011014_DESC;"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";"When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was its first capital. In 1960, Islamabad was constructed as a forward capital for several reasons. Traditionally, development in Pakistan was focused on the colonial centre of Karachi, and President Ayub Khan wanted it to be equally distributed. Moreover, Karachi was located at one end of the country, making it vulnerable to attacks from the Arabian Sea. A capital which was easily accessible from all parts of the country was needed. The newly selected location of Islamabad was closer to army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the disputed territory of Kashmir in the North.\n\nIn 1958, a commission was constituted to select a suitable site for the national capital with particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics, and defence requirements along with other attributes. After extensive study, research, and a thorough review of potential sites, the commission recommended the area northeast of Rawalpindi. A Greek firm of architects, Konstantinos Apostolos Doxiadis, designed the master plan of the city which was based on a grid plan and triangular in shape, with its apex towards the Margalla Hills. The capital was not moved directly from Karachi to Islamabad; it was first shifted temporarily to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad when the development was completed.";;;X
EVT_8011014_A;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;Build Islamabad!;;;X
EVT_8011014_B;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;Move to Rawalpindi;;;X
EVT_8011014_C;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;Stay in Karachi;;;X
EVT_8011020_NAME;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;Army of Pakistan;;;X
EVT_8011020_DESC;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;The Pakistan Army was created on 30 June 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army. The soon to be created Dominion of Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments compared to the 12 armoured, forty artillery and twenty one infantry regiments that went to India. Fearing that India would take over the state of Kashmir, irregulars, scouts and tribal groups entered Kashmir to oppose the Maharaja of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, even though the Maharaja chose to join the Union of India. Regular army units joined the invasion later on but were stopped after the refusal of the army chief of staff, British officer General Sir Frank Messervy, to obey Pakistani leader Jinnah's orders to move the army into Kashmir.\n\nLater, during the 1950s, the Pakistan Army received large amounts of economic and military aid from the United States and Great Britain after signing two mutual defence treaties, the Baghdad Pact, which led to the formation of the Central Treaty Organization, and the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954. This aid greatly expanded the Army from its modest beginnings.;;;X
EVT_8011020_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8011304_NAME;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;Stroessner's Regime;;;X
EVT_8011304_DESC;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;Stroessner objected to President Federico Chávez' plans to arm the national police and threw him out of office in a coup d'état on May 4, 1954. After a brief interim presidency by Tomás Romero, Stroessner was the only candidate in a special election on July 11 to complete Chávez' term. He was reelected seven times—in 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, and 1988. He appeared alone on the ballot in 1958. In his other elections, he won by implausibly high margins (well over 80 percent in many cases). He served for 35 years and his lengthy rule was the 14th-longest ever by state leaders other than monarchs.\n\nSoon after taking office, Stroessner declared a state of siege and suspended constitutional freedoms. It was renewed every 90 days for the rest of his term, and was only lifted during elections. A devoted anti-Communist, he justified this action as a necessary tool to protect the country.;;;X
EVT_8011304_A;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;Welcome our new dictator;;;X
EVT_8011305_NAME;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;Opposition to Stroessner's regime;;;X
EVT_8011305_DESC;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;As leader of the Colorado Party, Stroessner exercised nearly complete control over the nation's political scene. Although opposition parties were nominally permitted after 1962 (the Colorado Party had been the only legal party in the country since 1947), Paraguay remained for all intents and purposes a one-party state. Elections were so heavily rigged in favor of the Colorados that the opposition had no realistic chance of winning, and opposition figures were subjected to varying degrees of harassment.\n\nWhile Stroessner's rule saw more stability than any living Paraguayan had ever known, it came at a high cost. The government's human rights record was considered particularly poor. Stroessner supported the U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic. and even offered to send troops to support the U.S. in Vietnam. His regime is also blamed for torture, kidnappings and corruption, of which the 'terror archives', discovered in 1992 in Lambaré suburb of Asunción, gave proof.\n\nA 1958 national plebiscite elected Stroessner to a second term, but dissatisfaction with the regime blossomed into a guerrilla insurgency soon afterward. Sponsored by exiled Liberals and Febreristas, small bands of armed men began to slip across the border from Argentina. Venezuela sent large amounts of aid to these groups starting in 1958. The following year, the new Cuban government under Fidel Castro also provided assistance.;;;X
EVT_8011305_A;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;Such a high cost;;;X
EVT_8011406_NAME;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;Premiership of Mossadegh;;;X
EVT_8011406_DESC;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;In early April 1951 the party organised nationwide strikes and riots in protest against delays in nationalization of the oil industry along with low wages and bad housing in the oil industry. This display of strength, along with public celebration at the assassination of General Razmara made an impact on the deputies of the Majlis (Parliament of Iran).\n\nOn 28 April 1951, the Majlis named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.\n\nThe new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates. Twenty percent of the money landlords received in rent was placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as public baths, rural housing, and pest control.;;;X
EVT_8011406_A;A new wave;A new wave;A new wave;A new wave;A new wave;A new wave;A new wave;A new wave;;;X
EVT_8011407_NAME;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;Shah returns from exile;;;X
EVT_8011407_DESC;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;After the failure to defend his policies, Mosaddegh was arrested at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after. On 22 August, the Shah returned from exile.\n\nZahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium and 'restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities', giving the U.S. and Great Britain the lion's share of Iran's oil. In return, the U.S. massively funded the Shah's resulting government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK, until the Shah's overthrow in 1979. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, tortured or executed. The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.;;;X
EVT_8011407_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8011413_NAME;White Revolution;White Revolution;White Revolution;White Revolution;White Revolution;White Revolution;White Revolution;White Revolution;;;X
EVT_8011413_DESC;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;The White Revolution was a far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to strengthen those classes that supported the traditional system. The Shah advertised the White Revolution as a step towards modernization, but there is little doubt that the Shah also had political motives: the White Revolution (a name attributed to the fact it was bloodless) was a way for him to legitimize the Pahlavi dynasty. Part of the reason for launching the White Revolution was that the Shah hoped to get rid of the landlords' influence and create a new base of support among the peasants and working class. The bulk of the program was aimed at Iran’s peasantry, a class the Shah hoped to gain as an ally to thwart the threat of the increasingly hostile middle class. Thus the White Revolution in Iran represented a new attempt to introduce reform from above and preserve traditional power patterns.\n\nIn order to legitimize the White Revolution, the Shah called for a national referendum in early 1963 in which 5,598,711 people voted for the reforms, and 4,115 voted against the reforms. Although this figure seems to suggest that a vast majority of the country was in favor of the reforms, there was plenty of controversy over its accuracy and success.;;;X
EVT_8011413_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8011506_NAME;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;Relations with USA;;;X
EVT_8011506_DESC;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;Elections were held in April 1946, with Manuel Roxas becoming the first president of the independent Republic of the Philippines. The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines, however, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets – more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.;;;X
EVT_8011506_A;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;At least we are independent;;;X
EVT_8011507_NAME;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;Hukbalahap Rebellion;;;X
EVT_8011507_DESC;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;The Hukbalahap was the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, formed in 1942 to fight the Japanese Empire's occupation of the Philippines during World War II. It fought a second war from 1946 to 1954 against the pro-Western leaders of their newly independent country. The insurgency was finally put down through a series of reforms and military victories by Filipino President Ramon Magsaysay.;;;X
EVT_8011507_A;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;It's a major problem;;;X
EVT_8011704_NAME;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;Portuguese India;;;X
EVT_8011704_DESC;On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';On 27 February 1950, the Government of India asked the Portuguese government to open negotiations about the future of Portuguese colonies in India. Portugal asserted that its territory on the Indian subcontinent was not a colony but part of metropolitan Portugal and hence its transfer was non-negotiable.\n\nOn 15 August 1955, 3000-5000 unarmed Indian activists attempted to enter Goa at six locations and were violently repulsed by Portuguese police officers, resulting in the deaths of between 21 and 30 people. The news of the massacre built public opinion in India against the presence of the Portuguese in Goa.\n\nIn March 1960, Portuguese defence minister General Moniz told Prime Minister Salazar that a sustained Portuguese campaign against decolonization would create for the army 'a suicide mission in which we could not succeed'. His opinion was shared by Minister Almeida Fernandes and the Army under secretary Colonel Costa Gomes and other top officers. Ignoring this advice, Salazar sent the following message to Governor General Vassalo e Silva in Goa on 14 December, in which he ordered the Portuguese forces in Goa to fight till the last man:\n\n'You understand the bitterness with which I send you this message. It is horrible to think that this may mean total sacrifice, but I believe that sacrifice is the only way for us to keep up to the highest traditions and provide service to the future of the Nation. Do not expect the possibility of truce or of Portuguese prisoners, as there will be no surrender rendered because I feel that our soldiers and sailors can be either victorious or dead. These words could, by their seriousness, be directed only to a soldier of higher duties fully prepared to fulfill them. God will not allow you to be the last Governor of the State of India.';;;X
EVT_8011704_A;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;Hang on this piece of land!;;;X
EVT_8011704_B;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;Negotiate the transfer of Goa;;;X
EVT_8012004_NAME;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;Odria's Coup;;;X
EVT_8012004_DESC;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;In 1945, José Bustamante had attained the presidency with the help of the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA). Soon, major disagreements arose between Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the founder of APRA, and President Bustamante. Odría, a fierce opponent of APRA, was appointed Minister of Government and Police. On October 27, 1948, he led a successful military coup against the government and took over as president. After two years, he resigned and had one of his colleagues, Zenón Noriega, take office as a puppet president so he could run for president as a civilian. He was duly elected a month later as the only candidate.\n\nOdría came down hard on APRA, momentarily pleasing the oligarchy and all others on the right, but like Juan Perón, he followed a populist course that won him great favor with the poor and lower classes. A thriving economy allowed him to indulge in expensive but crowd-pleasing social policies. At the same time, however, civil rights were severely restricted and corruption was rampant throughout his régime.;;;X
EVT_8012004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8012007_NAME;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;Odria peacefully steps down;;;X
EVT_8012007_DESC;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;After cracking down on opposition and social liberties it was feared that Odría's dictatorship would run indefinitely so it came as a surprise when he legalized opposition parties in 1956 and called fresh elections--in which he would not be a candidate. He was succeeded by a former president, Manuel Prado.;;;X
EVT_8012007_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8012010_NAME;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;Godoy's takeover;;;X
EVT_8012010_DESC;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;Three main candidates participated in the Peruvian presidential elections of 10 June 1962: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, founder and leader of the APRA, future president Fernando Belaúnde, and former dictator Manuel A. Odría. Haya de la Torra gained most of the votes according to the official results, one percentage point ahead of Belaúnde. However, none of the candidates reached the margin of one-third of the votes needed to become president. Therefore, the final decision lay with the Peruvian Congress.\n\nAt 3:20 in the morning at Presidential Palace, one of the thirty tanks stationed outside gunned its engine and rammed through the black wrought-iron gates. Manuel Prado, the constitutional President of Peru, was thrown out of office in a coup, just ten days short of completing his six-year term. Pérez Godoy, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the military junta formed by high-ranked members of the Peruvian Military Force. Once in the Palace, the four-man junta administered its own swearing-into office. The soldiers then suspended all constitutional guarantees, dissolved Parliament, arrested Electoral Tribunal officials 'for trial' and promised 'clean and pure elections' scheduled for June 9, 1963. General Lindley was subsequently named Prime Minister.\n\nThe military coup was condemned throughout the world: the initial reaction abroad was of disgust and dismay, something the military junta had not expected. Promising a 'New Peru', Pérez Godoy pushed through a 24 percent increase in the budget and decreed new taxes to pay for it. Politically, Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised June elections even if they should result in a victory for the leftist-turned-moderate APRA Party of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. However, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.;;;X
EVT_8012010_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8012011_NAME;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;Godoy is overthrown;;;X
EVT_8012011_DESC;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;Pérez Godoy was generally in favor of carrying out the promised elections, however, in early 1963, he showed more of an inclination to deviate from the original plan and to stay in power longer than initially planned.\n\nWarned that his comrades-in-arms were determined to remove him, Pérez Godoy tried to no avail to rally support among provincial military commanders and civilians working toward the new presidential elections in June. Air Force Major General Pedro Vargas Prada and Vice Admiral Francisco Torres Matos gave him an ultimatum to which Pérez Godoy replied: 'I refuse to leave. It is too late now to continue this conversation. I am going to retire.' He was deposed by the junta's next man in line, Army General Nicolás Lindley, who swiftly moved into the presidency on March 3. Lindley restored the schedule for democratic elections and turned over the office of president to election winner Fernando Belaúnde.;;;X
EVT_8012011_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8012603_NAME;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;Death of Jan C. Smuts;;;X
EVT_8012603_DESC;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;Smuts's inauguration as chancellor of the University of Cambridge shortly after the election restored his morale, but the sudden and unexpected death of his eldest son, Japie, in October 1948 brought him to the depths of despair. In the last two years of his life, now frail and visibly aged, Smuts continued to comment perceptively, and on occasion presciently, on world affairs. Europe and the Commonwealth remained his dominant concerns. He regretted the departure of the Irish republic from the Commonwealth, but was unhappy when India remained within it after it became a republic, fearing the example this would set South Africa's Nationalists. His outstanding contributions as a world statesman were acknowledged in innumerable honours and medals. At home his reputation was more mixed. Nevertheless, despite ill health he continued his public commitments.\n\nOn 29 May 1950, a week after the public celebration of his eightieth birthday in Johannesburg and Pretoria, he suffered a coronary thrombosis. He died of a subsequent heart attack on his family farm of Doornkloof, Irene, near Pretoria, on 11 September 1950, and was cremated in Pretoria on 16 September. His ashes were scattered in the veld on his farm Doornkloof.;;;X
EVT_8012609_NAME;Apartheid;Apartheid;Apartheid;Apartheid;Apartheid;Apartheid;Apartheid;Apartheid;;;X
EVT_8012609_DESC;"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";"In the run-up to the 1948 elections, the main Afrikaner nationalist party, the Herenigde Nasionale Party (Reunited National Party) under the leadership of Protestant cleric Daniel Francois Malan, campaigned on its policy of apartheid. The NP narrowly defeated Smuts's United Party and formed a coalition government with another Afrikaner nationalist party, the Afrikaner Party. Malan became the first apartheid prime minister, and the two parties later merged to form the National Party (NP).\n\nNational Party leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: white, black, coloured, and Indian. These groups were split further into thirteen nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups. The state passed laws which paved the way for 'grand apartheid', which was centred on separating races on a large scale, by compelling people to live in separate places defined by race. In addition, 'petty apartheid' laws were passed. Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools and universities. Signboards such as 'whites only' applied to public areas, even including park benches. Black people were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people.\n\nFurther laws had the aim of suppressing resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other political party that the government chose to label as 'communist'. Disorderly gatherings were banned, as were certain organisations that were deemed threatening to the government.";;;X
EVT_8012609_A;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;Shameful laws;;;X
EVT_8012610_NAME;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;Republican Referendum of 1960;;;X
EVT_8012610_DESC;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;In 1960, the National Party government of South Africa held a referendum on whether the then Union of South Africa should abandon its status as a Commonwealth realm and become a republic. The Afrikaner-dominated right-wing National Party, which had come to power in 1948, was avowedly republican, and regarded South Africa's status as a Commonwealth realm as a relic of British imperialism. The referendum was held during 1960 on request of the Prime Minister, Hendrik Verwoerd. On October 5, 1960, white South Africans were asked: Are you in favour of a Republic for the Union? Historically, the vote was 'yes' by a margin of 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.;;;X
EVT_8012610_A;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;Become Republic of South Africa;;;X
EVT_8012610_B;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;Remain Union of South Africa;;;X
EVT_8012703_NAME;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;Presidency of Julio Carballo;;;X
EVT_8012703_DESC;"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";"Julio Adalberto Rivera Carballo was a military officer who helped lead a military coup in 1961. From January 1961 to September 1961 he was a member of the Civic Military Directory which ruled El Salvador at that time. In 1962 he was elected President for a 5-year term as the candidate of the National Conciliation Party. As a president he signed the Alianza para el Progreso with the United States and accepted a good amount of money to build low-cost housing for Salvadoreans such as the Zacamil buildings and other public works. The Times Magazines from March 16, 1962 said 'Colonel Julio Rivera, is loosening the control of ""the 14,"" a group of land and banking families who have ruled the country since Spanish colonial days', and recognized the biggest effort from the 19 Latin American countries that signed the document during U.S. President John F. Kennedy. At the same time, he started a Secret Service called ANSESAL and the head of this agency was Coronel Medrano, a CIA informant. He is known to have started Death Squads in El Salvador using military intelligence and personnel. They would interrogate and eliminate leftist suspects in both the countryside and in the capital.";;;X
EVT_8012703_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8012901_NAME;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;Death of King Abdul Aziz;;;X
EVT_8012901_DESC;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;Ibn Saud, as the King Abdul-Aziz was simply called, fathered dozens of sons and daughters by his many wives. He had at most only four wives at one time. He divorced and married many times. He made sure to marry into many of the noble clans and tribes within his territory, including the chiefs of the Bani Khalid, Ajman, and Shammar tribes, as well as the Al ash-Sheikh (descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). He also arranged for his sons and relatives to enter into similar marriages. He appointed his eldest surviving son, Saud as heir apparent, to be succeeded by the next eldest son, Faisal. The Saudi family became known as the 'royal family,' and each member, male and female, was accorded the title of amir or amira ('prince' or 'princess'), respectively.\n\nIbn Saud died in 1953, after having cemented an alliance with the United States in 1945. He is still celebrated officially as the 'Founder,' and only his direct descendents may take on the title of 'his or her Royal Highness.' Upon Ibn Saud's death, his son Saud assumed the throne without incident, but his lavish spending led to a power struggle between him and the new crown prince, Faisal.;;;X
EVT_8012902_NAME;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;Saud's troubled reign;;;X
EVT_8012902_DESC;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;A fierce struggle between Ibn Saud's most senior sons, Saud and Faisal, erupted immediately after the death of King Abdulaziz. The increase in oil revenues did not solve the financial problem associated with the debts Saud had inherited from his father, estimated to have been $200 million in 1953. In fact, this debt more than doubled by 1958, when it reached $450 million. The Saudi riyal lost half of its official value against the dollar. Both ARAMCO and international banks declined Saudi's demand for credit. Saud suspended the few government projects he had initiated, but continued his spending on luxurious palace.\n\nSaud and Faisal fought an internal battle over the definition of political responsibilities and the division of government functions. Saud is often associated among other things with plundering of oil revenues, luxurious palaces, conspiracy inside and outside Saudi Arabia, and vice. Faisal is associated with sobriety, piety, puritanism, financial wisdom, and modernization. Moreover, the conflict between the two brothers is often described as originating from the desire of Faisal to curb his brother's spending and solve Saudi Arabia's financial crisis.\n\nThe battle between the two brothers was fought over the role to be assigned to the Council of Ministers. Saud abolished the office of prime minister by royal decree, thus enforcing his position as King and de facto prime minister. Saud thought of himself as both King and prime minister whereas Faisal envisaged more powers in his own hand as Crown Prince and deputy prime minister.;;;X
EVT_8012902_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8013402_NAME;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;Death of Rama VIII;;;X
EVT_8013402_DESC;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;Only after the end of World War II did Ananda Mahidol, his regnal name being Rama VIII, return to Thailand. Despite his youth and inexperience, he quickly won the hearts of the Thai people, who had continued to revere the monarchy through the upheavals of the 1930s and 1940s. He was a handsome young man and Thais were delighted to have their King amongst them once again. Foreign observers, however, believed that Ananda Mahidol did not really want to be King and felt his reign would not last long.\n\nOn 9 June 1946, the King was found shot dead in his bedroom in the Boromphiman Throne Hall, only four days before he was scheduled to return to Switzerland to finish his doctoral degree in Law at the University of Lausanne. His brother Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded him. Ananda Mahidol was never crowned as king, but his brother posthumously gave him the full royal title of the ninefold umbrella.\n\nAn initial radio announcement on 9 June surmised that the King was accidentally killed while toying with his pistol. In October 1946, a Commission of Inquiry reported that the King's death could not have been accidental, but that neither suicide nor murder was satisfactorily proved.;;;X
EVT_8013402_A;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;Mystery never to be solved;;;X
EVT_8013405_NAME;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;Sarit Thanarat's coup;;;X
EVT_8013405_DESC;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;During the early 1950s, Pibunsongkhram's government had become increasingly corrupt, and the parliamentary election of 1957 was blatantly rigged to keep Pibunsongkhram in power. Public outrage and student protests, accompanied by the known displeasure of Thailand's king, led Sarit to stage a coup in September 1957, but a serious deterioration of his health led Sarit to fly to the United States of America for treatment, leaving Deputy Prime Minister Pote Sarasin, and after he left to become Secretary General of SEATO, Thanom Kittikachorn in charge.;;;X
EVT_8013407_NAME;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;Sarit Thanarat's second coup;;;X
EVT_8013407_DESC;"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";"After Sarit's first coup, economic troubles continued, and in October 1958 Sarit staged a second coup, intended to thwart the undisciplined politicians by imposing martial law. Sarit felt that democracy had failed in Thailand and intended to rule according to 'Thai ideologies', not imported Western political theories, choosing as his model the supposedly benevolent despots of his country's past.\n\nOn October 19, 1958, Sarit informed his generals of his plans for a 'revolution'. To no one's surprise, the following day he declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics that had begun in 1955, justifying his actions by arguing for a return to Thai traditions of social law and order.\n\nAs prime minister, Sarit accelerated his country's economic development under a plan designed by the United States and the World Bank that promoted both market competition and private investment. He also created the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), which continues to play an important role in Thailand's economic development, exemplified in Sarit's favorite term; 'patana' (development), and slogan; 'Nation, Religion, Monarch'. Nevertheless, Sarit's regime was the most repressive and authoritarian in modern Thai history, abrogating the constitution, dissolving parliament, and vesting all power in his newly-formed Revolutionary Party. Sarit banned all other political parties, imposing very strict censorship of the press after the coup, his Revolutionary Party banning eighteen leftist, neutralist, and forbidding starting up of new opposition newspapers.";;;X
EVT_8013801_NAME;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;Subjugation of Sinkiang;;;X
EVT_8013801_DESC;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sinkiang's overlord, Sheng Shicai, turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944.\n\nHe left Xinjiang on September 11, 1944 to join the Kuomintang's Republic of China government as Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Around 50 trucks accompanied him, loaded with his personal property, 'earned' in Sinkiang for 15 years, including gold (est. 1,500 kg) and silver (est. 15,000 kg). Later, he fled to Taiwan along with the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949.;;;X
EVT_8013801_A;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;Recall Sheng Shicai;;;X
EVT_8013801_B;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;Leave him at the post;;;X
EVT_8013802_NAME;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;Acquisition of Sinkiang;;;X
EVT_8013802_DESC;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, Sheng Shicai turned anti-Soviet. He expelled Soviet advisors and executed many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power.\n\nIn spite of this, KMT found Sinkiang not worthy any action or possibly treated these lands, so far away from other parts of China, lost for good. For us, it means that we are free to accept Sheng's pleas for assistance and give him all the support he needs, effectively annexing Sinkiang and making him a governor in the name of Soviet Union.;;;X
EVT_8013802_A;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;Accept the offer;;;X
EVT_8013802_B;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;Leave matters as they are;;;X
EVT_8013803_NAME;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;Three District Rebellion;;;X
EVT_8013803_DESC;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;Following Sheng Shicai's departure from Xinjiang, the new Kuomintang administration had increasing trouble maintaining law and order. On September 16, 1944, troops that had been sent to Gongha county, a majority Kazak region, were unable to contain a group of rioters. During October, the Three District Rebellion broke out generally south of Ghulja in the Ili, Altay and Tarbagatay districts of northern Xinjiang. Aided by the Soviet Union, and supported by several Xinjiang exiles trained in the Soviet Union, the rebels quickly established control over the three districts, capturing Ghulja in November. The ethnic Chinese population of the region was reduced by massacre and expulsion. According to United States consular officials the Islamic scholar Elihan Töre declared a 'Turkistan Islam Government'.;;;X
EVT_8013803_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8013804_NAME;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;Second Turkestan Republic;;;X
EVT_8013804_DESC;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;Elihan Töre, founder of East Turkestan Republic during the Three Districts Rebellion, organized his government under following outcry:\n\n'Praise be to Allah for his manifold blessings! Allah be praised! The aid of Allah has given us the heroism to overthrow the government of the oppressor Chinese. But even if we have set ourselves free, can it be pleasing in the sight of our God if we only stand and watch while you, our brethren in religion ... still bear the bloody grievance of subjection to the black politics of the oppressor Government of the savage Chinese? Certainly our God would not be satisfied. We will not throw down our arms until we have made you free from the five bloody fingers of the Chinese oppressors' power, nor until the very roots of the Chinese oppressors' government have dried and died away from the face of the earth of East Turkestan, which we have inherited as our native land from our fathers and our grandfathers.'\n\nThe demands of the rebels included termination of Chinese rule, equality for all nationalities, recognised use of native languages, friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and opposition to Chinese immigration into Xinjiang. The military forces available to the rebellion were the newly formed Ili National Army, which included mostly Uighur, Kazakh and White Russian soldiers (around 25,000 troops, armed and trained by the Soviet Union, strengthened with regular Red Army units), and a group of Kazak Karai tribesmen under the command of Osman Batur (up to 20,000 horsemen).;;;X
EVT_8013804_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8013805_NAME;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;;;X
EVT_8013805_DESC;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja (Yining in Chinese). Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;;;X
EVT_8013805_A;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;Create a plot to annex Sinkiang;;;X
EVT_8013805_B;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;;;X
EVT_8013806_NAME;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;Invitation to Beijing;;;X
EVT_8013806_DESC;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;In July 1949, the advancing People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River and cut off the Kuomintang administration in southern Xinjiang. Some Kuomintang officials fled to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, but most surrendered to the Communist Party of China. In August 1949, the Communist Party of China sent Deng Liqun to negotiate with the ETR's leadership in Ghulja. Mao Zedong invited the leaders of the ETR to take part in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference later that year. The leaders of the ETR traveled to the Soviet Union on August 22, accompanied by Soviet vice-consul at Ghulja Vasiliy Borisov, where they were told to cooperate with the Communist Party of China. On August 24, Ehmetjan Qasim, Abdulkerim Abbas, Ishaq Beg, Luo Zhi and Delilhan Sugurbayev boarded a plane in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, headed for Beijing. On September 3, the Soviet Union informed the Chinese government that the plane had crashed near lake of Baikal on route to Beijing, killing all on-board.\n\nAfter the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, former KGB leaders revealed that five top ETR leaders were killed on Stalin's orders in Moscow on August 27, 1949, after a three-day imprisonment in former Tsar's stables, in accordance with a deal between Stalin and China's communist leader Mao Zedong, but this allegation has never been confirmed. The remaining important figures of the ETR including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration.;;;X
EVT_8013806_A;Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);Accept invitation (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8013806_B;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;See through the machinations;;;X
EVT_8013807_NAME;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;;;X
EVT_8013807_DESC;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;After most important political figures of East Turkestan Republic perished, the remaining government officials including Saifuddin Azizi agreed to incorporate the three districts into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and accept important positions within the administration. However, some Kazakhs led by Osman Batur continued their resistance until 1954. Saifuddin then became the first chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which replaced Xinjiang Province in 1955.;;;X
EVT_8013807_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8013808_NAME;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;End of Second Turkestan Republic;;;X
EVT_8013808_DESC;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;;;X
EVT_8013808_A;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;;;X
EVT_8013808_B;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;Leave them be;;;X
EVT_8013809_NAME;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;Chinese ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8013809_DESC;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;Victorious KMT forces, confident after their victory over communist partisans, now aim to reunite lands that were once part of mighty Chinese Empire. Provinces of Sinkiang, though located far away from the populated coastline, are one of the target's of Chiang's interest.;;;X
EVT_8013809_A;Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);Agree (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8013809_B;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;Then it is war!;;;X
EVT_8013810_NAME;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;Annexation of Turkestan;;;X
EVT_8013810_DESC;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;Leaders of far-away Turkestan decided not to risk war and wrath of our mighty forces. Sinkiang, the most remote of our provinces, is once again fully ours!;;;X
EVT_8013810_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8014205_NAME;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;Death of Stalin;;;X
EVT_8014205_DESC;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;Stalin's health deteriorated towards the end of World War II. He suffered from atherosclerosis from his heavy smoking. He suffered a mild stroke around the time of the Victory parade, and a severe heart attack in October 1945.\n\nOn the early morning hours of 1 March 1953, after an all-night dinner and a movie Stalin arrived at his Kuntsevo residence some 15 km west of Moscow centre with interior minister Lavrentiy Beria and future premiers Georgy Malenkov, Nikolai Bulganin and Nikita Khrushchev where he retired to his bedroom to sleep. At dawn, Stalin did not emerge from his room, having probably suffered a stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body.\n\nAlthough his guards thought that it was odd for him not to rise at his usual time, they were under strict orders not to disturb him and left him alone the entire day. At around 10 p.m. he was discovered by Peter Lozgachev, the Deputy Commandant of Kuntsevo, who entered his bedroom to check up on him and recalled a horrifying scene of Stalin lying on the floor of his room wearing pyjama bottoms and an undershirt with his clothes soaked in stale urine. A frightened Lozgachev asked Stalin what happened to him, but all he could get out of the Generalissimo was unintelligible responses that sounded like 'Dzhh.' Lozgachev frantically called a few party officials asking them to send good doctors. Lavrentiy Beria was informed and arrived a few hours afterwards, and the doctors only arrived in the early morning of 2 March in which they changed his bedclothes and tended to him.\n\nThe bedridden Stalin died four days later, on 5 March 1953, at the age of 74, and was embalmed on 9 March. Officially, the cause of death was listed as a cerebral hemorrhage. His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.;;;X
EVT_8014205_A;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;The Generalissimus passes away!;;;X
EVT_8014206_NAME;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;Plot against Beria;;;X
EVT_8014206_DESC;"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";"After Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nBased on Beria's own statements, other leaders suspected that in the wake of the East German uprising of 1953, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. He had already argued for 'de-Bolshevization' of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power). The East German uprising convinced Molotov, Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin that Beria's policies were dangerous and destabilizing to Soviet power. Within days of the events in Germany, Khrushchev persuaded the other leaders to support a Party coup against Beria; Beria's principal ally Malenkov abandoned him.\n\nOn 26 June 1953, Beria was arrested and held in an undisclosed location near Moscow. By the most likely account, Khrushchev prepared an elaborate ambush, convening a meeting of the Presidium on 26 June, where he suddenly launched a scathing attack on Beria, accusing him of being a traitor and spy in the pay of British intelligence. Beria was taken completely by surprise. He asked, 'What's going on, Nikita Sergeyevich? Why are you picking fleas in my trousers?' Molotov and others quickly spoke against Beria one after the other, followed by a motion by Khrushchev for his instant dismissal. When Beria finally realized what was happening and plaintively appealed to Malenkov to speak for him, his old friend and crony silently hung his head and refused to meet his gaze. Malenkov pressed a button on his desk as the pre-arranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in a nearby room. They burst in and arrested Beria.";;;X
EVT_8014206_A;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;Arrest him!;;;X
EVT_8014206_B;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;Let's hope there won't be another purge;;;X
EVT_8014213_NAME;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;Execution of Beria;;;X
EVT_8014213_DESC;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;After his arrest, Beria was taken first to the Moscow guardhouse and then to the bunker of the headquarters of Moscow Military District. Defence Minister Nikolai Bulganin ordered the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division and Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division to move into Moscow to prevent security forces loyal to Beria from rescuing him. Many of Beria's subordinates, proteges and associates were also arrested. Pravda did not announce Beria's arrest until 10 July, crediting it to Malenkov and referring to Beria's 'criminal activities against the Party and the State.' In December, the paper announced that Beria and the six accomplices mentioned, 'in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies,' had been 'conspiring for many years to seize power in the Soviet Union and restore capitalism.'\n\nBeria and the others were tried by a special session ('Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie') of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, on 23 December 1953. Marshal Ivan Konev was the chairman of the court.\n\nWhen the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account, Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial, while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.;;;X
EVT_8014213_A;Fire!;Fire!;Fire!;Fire!;Fire!;Fire!;Fire!;Fire!;;;X
EVT_8014214_NAME;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;Foundation of Cominform;;;X
EVT_8014214_DESC;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;Founded in 1947, Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) is the common name for what was officially referred to as the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, and confirmed the new realities after World War II – including the creation of an Eastern Bloc. Cominform was a Soviet-dominated organization of Communist parties founded in September 1947 at a conference of Communist party leaders in Szklarska Porêba, Poland. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin called the conference in response to divergences among eastern European governments on whether or not to attend the Paris Conference on Marshall Aid in July 1947. The initial seat of Cominform was located in Belgrade (then the capital of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia). After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history.\n\nThe intended purpose of Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. It had its own newspaper, and it encouraged unity of Communist parties. The Cominform was dissolved in 1956 after Soviet rapprochement with Yugoslavia and the process of De-Stalinization.;;;X
EVT_8014214_A;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;Strive for unity among communists;;;X
EVT_8014215_NAME;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;Virgin Lands Campaign;;;X
EVT_8014215_DESC;"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";"The Virgin Lands Campaign was an initiative by Nikita Khrushchev to open up vast tracts of unseeded (virgin) steppe in the northern Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Altay region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, started in 1954. More than 300,000 people, mostly Ukrainians and Russians, arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students and combine harvester operators would join them; however, these people would stay for only a year's harvest. The main Kazakh town was renamed Tselinograd, 'Virgin Lands City' (today's Astana).\n\nFor a brief time, Khrushchev inspired a communist zeal in the peoples of the Soviet Union, and concentrated that zeal on a task that, for an equally brief time, produced the expected results.The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Of the 125 million tonnes of grain produced in the Soviet Union that year, more than half of it came from one eighth of the country. The Soviet Union was producing, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. The scheme was therefore considered to be a huge success, as it not only enabled the USSR to feed its people but also claim to the world that the communist way of life was more productive.\n\nBy the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. However, production of fertilizers in the USSR had increased during this period and so the loss of fertility was principally due to poor planning as the fertilizers were rarely available where they were needed. Before long, due to lack of any measures to prevent erosion, much of that soil was simply being blown away by the wind to leave bare, useless steppe behind. Furthermore, the Soviet infrastructure was unable to cope and much of the grain produced did not reach the towns, which was where it was most needed.\n\nDespite the initial success of the Virgin Lands scheme, the Soviet Union was forced to buy 20 million tonnes of grain from Canada to meet its needs. This was a huge humiliation for the USSR and for Khrushchev, who had boasted that the Soviet Union would outstrip US agricultural production.";;;X
EVT_8014215_A;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;Gone with the wind…;;;X
EVT_8014216_NAME;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;;;X
EVT_8014216_DESC;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by Khruschev's call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin being mentioned in the same breath as Klement Gottwald. Hints of a new direction only came out gradually over the next ten days, which had the effect of leaving those present highly perplexed. The Polish communist leader Boles³aw Bierut died in Moscow shortly after attending the 20th Congress.\n\nOn 25 February, the very last day of the Congress, it was announced that an unscheduled session had been called for the Soviet delegates. Khrushchev's morning speech began with vague references to the harmful consequences of elevating a single individual so high that he took on the 'supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.' Khrushchev went on to say that such a mistake had been made about Stalin. While denouncing Stalin, Khrushchev carefully praised the Communist Party, which had the strength to withstand all the negative effects of imaginary crimes and false accusations. He finished by calling on the Party to eradicate the cult of personality and return to 'the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society.'\n\nThe speech shocked delegates to the Congress, as it flew in the face of years of Soviet propaganda, which had claimed that Stalin was a wise, peaceful, and fair leader. After long deliberations, in a month the speech was reported to the general public, but the full text was published only in 1989. Not everyone was ready to accept Khrushchev's new line. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha, for instance, strongly condemned Khrushchev as revisionist.;;;X
EVT_8014216_A;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;;;X
EVT_8014216_B;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;;;X
EVT_8014217_NAME;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;De-Stalinization;;;X
EVT_8014217_DESC;"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";"The Khrushchev Thaw refers to the period from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, when repression and censorship in the Soviet Union were partially reversed and millions of Soviet political prisoners were released from Gulag labor camps, due to Nikita Khrushchev's policies of de-Stalinization and peaceful coexistence with other nations. The Thaw became possible after the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953. Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 'The Secret Speech' at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, then ousted the pro-Stalinists during his power struggle in the Kremlin. The term was coined after Ilya Ehrenburg's 1954 novel The Thaw, sensational for its time.\n\nThe Thaw initiated irreversible transformation of the entire Soviet society by opening up for some economic reforms and international trade, educational and cultural contacts, festivals, books by foreign authors, foreign movies, art shows, popular music, dances and new fashions, massive involvement in international sport competitions; it was a chain of unprecedented steps to free people from fear and dictatorship that culminated in the removal of Stalin's body from Lenin's Mausoleum. Although the power struggle between liberals and conservative pro-Stalinists never stopped, it eventually weakened the Soviet Communist Party.\n\nKhrushchev's Thaw allowed some freedom of information in the media, arts and culture; international festival, foreign movies, uncensored books, and new forms of entertainment on the emerging national TV, ranging from massive parades and celebrations to popular music and variety shows, satire and comedies, and all-star shows.";;;X
EVT_8014217_A;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;Let's breathe with relief;;;X
EVT_8014220_NAME;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;Leningrad Affair;;;X
EVT_8014220_DESC;"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";"The Leningrad Affair was a series of criminal cases fabricated in the late 1940s-early 1950s in order to accuse a number of prominent politicians and members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of treason and intention to create an anti-Soviet organization based in Leningrad.\n\nIn January 1949 Leningrad Trade Fair was organized to boost the post-war economy and support the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad with goods and services from all over the Soviet Union. The Fair was attacked by official Soviet propaganda, and was falsely portrayed as a scheme to use the federal budget from Moscow for business development in Leningrad. A number of other false accusations were added. The initial accuser was Georgy Malenkov, Stalin's first deputy, later joined by Nikolai Khrushchev, and Lavrentiy Beria. Over two thousand people from the Leningrad city government and regional authorities were arrested.\n\nAs a result of the first prosecution, on September 30, 1950, Nikolai Voznesensky (chairman of Gosplan), Mikhail Rodionov (Chairman of the RSFSR Council of Ministers), Aleksei Kuznetsov, Pyotr Popkov, Ya. F. Kapustin and P. G. Lazutin were sentenced to death on false accusations of embezzlement of the Soviet State budget for ""unapproved business in Leningrad"", which was labeled as anti-Soviet treason. Upon Stalin's approval, Malenkov personally ordered the destruction of the Museum of the Siege of Leningrad and declared the 900-day-long defense of Leningrad ""a myth designed by anti-Soviet traitors trying to diminish the greatness of comrade Stalin.""";;;X
EVT_8014220_A;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;;;X
EVT_8014220_B;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;;;X
EVT_8014221_NAME;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;Fate of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee;;;X
EVT_8014221_DESC;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was formed on Joseph Stalin's order in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West.\n\nThe contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York City in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, the committee's chairman was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests.\n\nIn January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans', unmistakably aimed at Jews. On 12 August 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the 'Night of the Murdered Poets'.;;;X
EVT_8014221_A;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;Stage the trials;;;X
EVT_8014221_B;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;Abandon this idea;;;X
EVT_8014222_NAME;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;U-2 surveillance sorties;;;X
EVT_8014222_DESC;"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";"In July 1957, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from Pakistan's Prime Minister Huseyn Suhrawardy for the U.S. to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 ""spy-in-the-sky"" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.\n\nOn 9 April 1960, a U-2C spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit ""10-10,"" piloted by Bob Ericson, crossed the southern national boundary of the Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Dolon Air Base where Tu-95 strategic bombers were stationed, the Surface-to-Air Missile test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (Baikonur Cosmodrome).\n\nThe plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it had flown more than 250 km over the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts at interception by MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. The U-2 left Soviet air space at 11:32 and landed at an Iranian airstrip at Zahedan. It was clear that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation.";;;X
EVT_8014222_A;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;Get the planes up in the air!;;;X
EVT_8014222_B;Too risky;Too risky;Too risky;Too risky;Too risky;Too risky;Too risky;Too risky;;;X
EVT_8014223_NAME;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;;;X
EVT_8014223_DESC;"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";;;X
EVT_8014223_A;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;What an embarassment!;;;X
EVT_8014224_NAME;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;U-2 incident;;;X
EVT_8014224_DESC;"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";"On 1 May 1960, captain Francis Gary Powers went on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk as well as plutonium processing center in Mayak.\n\nAll units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Yet because of the U-2's extreme operating altitude, Soviet attempts to intercept the plane using fighter aircraft failed. The U-2 was eventually brought down near Degtyarsk, Ural Region, by one of SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) surface-to-air missiles. The plane's pilot successfully bailed out and was captured soon after parachuting down onto Russian soil. Powers carried with him a modified silver dollar which contained a lethal toxic needle, but did not use it.\n\nA close study of Powers' account of the flight shows that one of the last targets he had overflown was the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium production facility. From photographs of the facility, the heat rejection capacity of the reactors' cooling systems could have been estimated, thus allowing a calculation of the power output of the reactors, thus allowing analysts to determine how many nuclear weapons the USSR was producing.\n\nAfter learning of the incident, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the world, that a ""spy-plane"" had been shot down but intentionally made no reference to the pilot. As a result, the Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash, authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a ""weather research aircraft"" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had radioed ""difficulties with his oxygen equipment"" while flying over Turkey. On 7 May, Khrushchev sprang his trap and announced: ""I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things the Americans have said.""Not only was Powers still alive, but his plane was also largely intact. The incident resulted in great humiliation for Eisenhower's administration, caught in a lie.";;;X
EVT_8014224_A;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;That will teach them a lesson!;;;X
EVT_8014225_NAME;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;Catalina Affair;;;X
EVT_8014225_DESC;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;The Catalina affair was an incident on June 13, 1952, when a Swedish military Douglas DC-3A-360 Skytrain flying over the Baltic Sea carrying out signals intelligence gathering operations for the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA), disappeared east of the isle of Gotska Sandön. Three days later, two Swedish military Catalina flying boats searched for the DC-3 north of Estonia. One of the planes was shot down by Soviet warplanes but the crew ditched near the West German freighter Münsterland and were rescued. The USSR denied shooting down the DC-3, but a few days later a life raft with Soviet shell shrapnel was found. In 1956, while meeting the Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted that the Soviet Union had shot down the DC-3. This information was not released to the public at the time.\n\nSweden maintained for nearly 40 years that the plane was undertaking a navigation training flight. Only after pressure from crew member families, Swedish authorities did confirm that the DC-3 was equipped with British equipment and it had been spying for NATO.;;;X
EVT_8014225_A;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;It was a training flight, wasn't it?;;;X
EVT_8014226_NAME;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;Internal Troops;;;X
EVT_8014226_DESC;"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";"The Internal Troops, full name Internal Troops of the Ministry for Internal Affairs (MVD) was a paramilitary gendarmerie-like force, used to support and reinforce the Militsiya, deal with large-scale crowd control, internal armed conflicts, and safeguarding of highly-important facilities (like nuclear power plants). As such, the force was and is involved in all conflicts and violent disturbances in the history of the Soviet Union and modern Russia, including Stalin's mass deportations, imprisonments and executions.\n\nDuring wartime, the Internal Troops falls under Armed Forces military command and fulfill the missions of local defence and rear area security. The Soviet Internal Troops were formed in 1919 under the Cheka (later NKVD, and were known as ""NKVD Troops""), remained there with all the mergers and splittings of Soviet state security services and ended up under the control of the police-like MVD.\n\nDuring World War II, most units of the NKVD Internal Troops were engaged alongside Red Army forces against Axis troops. They participated in the defense of Moscow, Leningrad, the Brest Fortress, Kiev, Odessa, Voronezh, Stalingrad, the North Caucasus and were heavily engaged during the battle of Kursk. Typically, NKVD Internal Troops were defensive in nature and large VV units also stayed in the rear to maintain order, fight enemy infiltrators and to guard key installations. Altogether, more than 53 Internal Troops divisions and 20 Internal Troops brigades were on active duty during the war. 18 units were awarded battle honors (military decorations or honorary titles). A total of 977,000 servicemen were killed in action.";;;X
EVT_8014226_A;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;They will continue to protect us!;;;X
EVT_8014226_B;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;Disband them to save our resources;;;X
EVT_8014227_NAME;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;Doctors' plot;;;X
EVT_8014227_DESC;"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";"The Doctors' plot in 1952/53 was the most dramatic anti-Jewish episode in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's regime, involving the ""unmasking"" of a group of prominent Moscow doctors, predominantly Jews, as conspiratorial assassins of Soviet leaders. With the beginning of the Cold War, the State of Israel allying with the West, and Stalin's suspicions of any form of nationalism, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched a campaign against so-called ""rootless cosmopolitans."" Also, in the course of his career, Stalin became increasingly suspicious towards physicians.\n\nThe death of Marshal Khorloogiin Choibalsan in Moscow early in 1952 concerned the aging Stalin who commented, ""They die one after another. Shcherbakov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, Choibalsan ... die so quickly! We must change the old doctors for new ones."" To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a ""Doctors Plot"" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.\n\nInitially, 37 doctors were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media.\n\nAfter Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, the new leadership quickly distanced itself from the investigation into the plot. The charges were dismissed and the doctors exonerated in a March 31 decree by the newly appointed Minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Beria, and on April 6 this was communicated to the public in Pravda. In his 1956 ""Secret Speech"", Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stated that the Doctors Plot was ""fabricated... set up by Stalin"", but that Stalin did not ""have the time in which to bring it to an end,"" which saved the doctors' lives.";;;X
EVT_8014227_A;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;Unmask the conspirators!;;;X
EVT_8014227_B;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;It's an insane idea;;;X
EVT_8014228_NAME;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;XXth Congress of the Party;;;X
EVT_8014228_DESC;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 14– 25 February 1956. Delegates at this Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were given no advance warning of what to expect. Indeed, proceedings were opened by the call for all to stand in memory of the Communist leaders who had died since the previous Congress, with Stalin receiving almost God-like tributes. Still, not all the Party followed this line without any qualms and some voices could be heard that Soviet leadership may be ready to shake off Stalin's legacy and condemn his atrocities.;;;X
EVT_8014228_A;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;Criticize cult of personality;;;X
EVT_8014228_B;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;Contemplate greatness of Stalin once more;;;X
EVT_8014250_NAME;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;Stalin's Successors;;;X
EVT_8014250_DESC;"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";"After Stalin died in March 1953, there was a period of uncertainty over the succession in the highest circles of power. On paper, Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev as the Party's First Secretary and Georgi Malenkov as Premier. However the central figure in the immediate post-Stalin period was the former head of the state security apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria, despite his record as part of Stalin's terror state, initiated a period of relative liberalization, including the release of some political prisoners. The leadership also began allowing some criticism of Stalin, saying that his one-man dictatorship went against the principles laid down by Lenin. Historically, the Politburo members disliked and feared Beria for his role under Stalin and with the support of the armed forces, had him arrested three months after Stalin's death.  In the post-Beria period, Khrushchev rapidly began to emerge as the key figure.\n\nHowever, shortly after Stalin's death the final outcome of the power struggle was difficult to predict and many things could alter the final outcome. The historical succession of Khrushchev will bring de-Stalinization and attempts to increase the Soviet people's quality of life; liberalization, ""thaw"" of society, marred however by the stagnating economy and corrupted party elites. Alternatively, Stalin could be succeeded by Malenkov and Molotov: Stalinists who wanted to reform the system, e.g. by decreasing Soviet party elite's salaries and increasing wages of the average worker; their plan was a shift from heavy industry towards consumer goods, and domination by the technical intellgentsia. Beria could as well manage to stay in power and introduce elements of capitalistic free market mechanisms which he admired, meanwhile maintaining an iron grip on culture and ban all dissent. At last, in the power vacuum, there was always a place of getting military in the foreground, especially in such turbulent times. Great war hero, Georgiy Zhukov, could undoubtedly muster his immense authority and take highest offices of the state.\n\nNote: each choice brings its own benefits and costs and there is always a possibility of dissent mounting even further, leading to destabilization of the whole state in case of situation when the successors does not successfully consolidate his power.";;;X
EVT_8014250_A;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev;;;X
EVT_8014250_B;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov;;;X
EVT_8014250_C;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria;;;X
EVT_8014250_D;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov ;;;X
EVT_8014251_NAME;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;;;X
EVT_8014251_DESC;"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";;;X
EVT_8014251_A;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;;;X
EVT_8014251_B;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;;;X
EVT_8014252_NAME;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;Uncertainties of 1953;;;X
EVT_8014252_DESC;"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";"The power struggle which occurred after the Stalin's death historically meant that the power switched hands of Beria, overthrown by Zhukov, Malenkov, and at last Khrushchev .Khrushchev presented himself as a down-to-earth activist prepared to take up any challenge, contrasting with Malenkov who, though sophisticated, came across as colorless. At a Central Committee meeting in January 1955, Malenkov was accused of involvement in atrocities, and the committee passed a resolution accusing him of involvement in the Leningrad case, and of facilitating Beria's climb to power. At a meeting of the mostly ceremonial Supreme Soviet the following month, Malenkov was demoted in favor of Bulganin, to the surprise of Western observers. According to Khrushchev biographer William Tompson, ""Khrushchev's position as first among the members of the collective leadership was now beyond any reasonable doubt.""\n\nYet, it was possible that the most intensive period of the power struggle could continue for months and various party factions and the Army could engage in such a bitter fight that it could jeopardize the unity of the whole Union.";;;X
EVT_8014252_A;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;Dissent is crushed;;;X
EVT_8014252_B;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;Dissent intensifies;;;X
EVT_8014253_NAME;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;Crumbling Union of the Workers;;;X
EVT_8014253_DESC;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;Uncertainty of succession after Stalin's death at first seemed to be only a minor clash in the highest circles of power but soon the conflict took bigger scale when leaders of different party factions started to incite revolts among their followers. Soon the army was in full revolt and all the nationalist tendencies that Stalin managed to keep under control were released at once. His successor may be able to rein them in again, using full force of the army and security apparatus but there is always a possibility that things go out of control completely.;;;X
EVT_8014253_A;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;We crush counterrevolutionaries!;;;X
EVT_8014253_B;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;Dissent is overbearing;;;X
EVT_8014254_NAME;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;Beria's USSR;;;X
EVT_8014254_DESC;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;Before Stalin's death, Beria was appointed First Deputy Premier and reappointed head of the MVD, which he merged with the MGB. His close ally Malenkov was the new Prime Minister and initially the most powerful man in the post-Stalin leadership. Beria was second most powerful, and given Malenkov's personal weakness, was poised to become the power behind the throne and ultimately leader himself. Khrushchev became Party Secretary.\n\nGiven his record, it is not surprising that the other Party leaders were suspicious of Beria's motives. Moreover, Beria was a Georgian, just as Stalin was, and the party leadership felt uneasy leaving too much power within the Georgian circle of power. Maybe it would be the best for the country's stability and future to give up the prestigious chairmanship of the Party and move to rule from the shadows.;;;X
EVT_8014254_A;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;Make Malenkov a figurehead secretary;;;X
EVT_8014254_B;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;Stay in power, in name and in fact;;;X
EVT_8014255_NAME;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;;;X
EVT_8014255_DESC;"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nRealizing a scenario similar to the Austrian one would be quite a shock to the socialist world but maybe it will defuse ongoing tensions in Europe and create a neutral German state as a divide between us and the Allies.";;;X
EVT_8014255_A;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;Let's propose such a deal;;;X
EVT_8014255_B;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;No deals with Adenauer;;;X
EVT_8014256_NAME;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;;;X
EVT_8014256_DESC;"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";;;X
EVT_8014256_A;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;;;X
EVT_8014256_B;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;;;X
EVT_8014257_NAME;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;;;X
EVT_8014257_DESC;"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";;;X
EVT_8014257_A;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;;;X
EVT_8014257_B;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;;;X
EVT_8014258_NAME;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;;;X
EVT_8014258_DESC;"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";;;X
EVT_8014258_A;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;;;X
EVT_8014258_B;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;;;X
EVT_8014259_NAME;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;;;X
EVT_8014259_DESC;"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";;;X
EVT_8014259_A;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;;;X
EVT_8014259_B;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;;;X
EVT_8014260_NAME;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;Beria's proposal;;;X
EVT_8014260_DESC;"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";"After a spontaneous uprising against the East German Communist regime broke out in East Berlin, Beria seemed to ponder on the idea of solving the German issue, in times when final reunification of Germany seemed still possible. Perhaps, he might be willing to trade the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War for massive aid from the United States, as had been received in World War II. The cost of the war still weighed heavily on the Soviet economy. Beria craved the vast financial resources that another (more sustained) relationship with the United States could provide. He had already argued for ""de-Bolshevization"" of Soviet foreign policy (though he still favored traditional terror methods as necessary to control domestic power).\n\nAcceptance of Beria's proposal by all the countries would mean that Germany will be united, with democratic government but will leave any military alliance it is in and revoke military access to occupying powers.";;;X
EVT_8014260_A;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;Accept unification;;;X
EVT_8014260_B;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;Refuse;;;X
EVT_8014261_NAME;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;Unification of Germany;;;X
EVT_8014261_DESC;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;Agreement among Soviet leaders to peaceful unification of Germany seemed impossibility under Stalin's regime and reluctance of Western countries was also something to fear for. However, under the new leadership of Beria, USSR proved ready to rethink its policies towards Germany which made reunification a reality.;;;X
EVT_8014261_A;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;Wiedervereinigung!;;;X
EVT_8014262_NAME;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;Western economic assistance;;;X
EVT_8014262_DESC;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;For Beria, concessions made that led to reunification of Germany under democratic regime meant that he could count on Western economic support and stronger commercial ties with the West and lowering costs of military occupation in Eastern Europe is something that had beneficial influence on the Soviet economy.;;;X
EVT_8014262_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8014508_NAME;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;Unrest in South Sudan;;;X
EVT_8014508_DESC;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;The First Sudanese Civil War (also known as the Anyanya rebellion) was a conflict from 1955 to 1972 between the northern part of Sudan and the southern Sudan region that demanded representation and more regional autonomy. Half a million people died over the 17 years of war. In August 1955, members of the British-administered Sudan Defense Force Equatorial Corps, mutinied in Torit, Juba, Yei, and Maridi. The immediate causes of the mutiny were a trial of a southern member of the national assembly and an allegedly false telegram urging northern administrators in the South to oppress Southerners. The mutinies were suppressed, though survivors fled the towns and began an uncoordinated insurgency in rural areas. Poorly armed and ill-organized, they were little threat to the outgoing colonial power or the newly formed Sudanese government. Period from 1955 to 1963 is treated as simply one of guerilla survival, scarcely removed from banditry, and that it was successful due to a score or so of former southern army officers and warrant officers, and a small number of non-commissioned officers.\n\nHowever, the insurgents gradually developed into a secessionist movement composed of the 1955 mutineers and southern students. These groups formed the Anyanya guerrilla army. Starting from Equatoria, since 1963 Anyanya spread throughout the other two southern provinces: Upper Nile and Bahr al Ghazal and the fights became much more tense.;;;X
EVT_8014508_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8014604_NAME;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;Death of Gustav V;;;X
EVT_8014604_DESC;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;Gustaf V was King of Sweden from 1907. He was the eldest son of King Oscar II of Sweden and Sophia of Nassau, a half-sister of Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Reigning until his death at age 92, he holds the record of being the oldest monarch of Sweden and the second-longest reigning (after Magnus IV).\n\nAscending to the throne in 1907, his early reign saw the rise of parliamentary rule in Sweden, although the leadup to World War I pre-empted his overthrow of Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff in 1914, replacing him with his own figurehead Hjalmar Hammarskjöld (father of Dag Hammarskjöld) for most of the war. In 1917 he accepted Staaff's successor Nils Edén to form a new government which de facto stripped the monarchy of its virtual powers and had enacted universal and equal suffrage, including for women, by 1919. Accepting the principles of parliamentary democracy, he remained a popular figurehead for the remainder 31 years of his rule, although not completely without influence - in the days of World War II he allegedly urged Per Albin Hansson's cabinet to accept calls from Nazi Germany to logistics support which. After a reign of 43 years, King Gustaf V died in Stockholm, due to flu complications on 29 October 1950.;;;X
EVT_8014604_A;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;Rest in peace;;;X
EVT_8014720_NAME;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;Baath's Party Coup;;;X
EVT_8014720_DESC;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;The Ba'ath takeover in Syria followed a Ba'ath coup in Iraq, the previous month. The new Syrian Government explored the possibility of federation with Egypt and with Ba'ath-controlled Iraq. An agreement was concluded in Cairo on April 17, 1963, for a referendum on unity to be held in September 1963. However, serious disagreements among the parties soon developed, and the tripartite federation failed to materialize. Thereafter, the Ba'ath regimes in Syria and Iraq began to work for bilateral unity. These plans foundered in November 1963, when the Ba'ath regime in Iraq was overthrown.;;;X
EVT_8014720_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015103_NAME;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;Communist China and Tibet;;;X
EVT_8015103_DESC;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;Even though Tibet had a de facto independence for a couple of decades, Chinese reminded about their overlordship from time to time and wished to realise it after reunification of China. In 1949, seeing that the Communists were gaining control of China, Tibetan Kashag expelled all Chinese connected with the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong lost little time in asserting Chinese presence in Tibet.;;;X
EVT_8015103_A;Put pressure;Put pressure;Put pressure;Put pressure;Put pressure;Put pressure;Put pressure;Put pressure;;;X
EVT_8015103_B;Let them be;Let them be;Let them be;Let them be;Let them be;Let them be;Let them be;Let them be;;;X
EVT_8015104_NAME;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;Recognition of nominal Chinese superiority;;;X
EVT_8015104_DESC;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;The People's Liberation Army crossed the Jinsha River on 6 or 7 October 1950 and had defeated the Tibetan army by 19 October. Instead of continuing with the military campaign, China asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate an agreement. The draft agreement was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese to sign anyway, using seals which had been specifically made for the purpose.\n\nIt is said some members of the Tibetan Cabinet were reluctant to accept any agreement with the Chinese. But the National Assembly of Tibet was more easy to be swayed by pressure exerted by the gigantic neighbor.;;;X
EVT_8015104_A;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;Seek coperation risking submission;;;X
EVT_8015104_B;Let there be war;Let there be war;Let there be war;Let there be war;Let there be war;Let there be war;Let there be war;Let there be war;;;X
EVT_8015105_NAME;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;Seventeen Point Agreement;;;X
EVT_8015105_DESC;"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";"The Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama allegedly reached an agreement in 1951 with the government of the newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The first of these seventeen points states: 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland the People's Republic of China.'\n\nThe signing of the Seventeen-Point agreement was later contested as invalid in the Tibetan exile community, who charged that the Tibet delegates were forced to sign under duress.";;;X
EVT_8015105_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015106_NAME;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;1959 Tibetan Rebellion;;;X
EVT_8015106_DESC;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;On 1 March 1959, an unusual invitation to attend a theatrical performance at the Chinese military headquarters outside Lhasa, not be accompanied by his traditional armed escort, was extended to the Dalai Lama. On 10 March, an estimated 300,000 Tibetans surrounded the Dalai Lama's palace to prevent him from leaving or being removed. This marked the beginning of the uprising in Lhasa.;;;X
EVT_8015106_A;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;Revolt is the only option;;;X
EVT_8015106_B;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;Let Dalai Lama be abducted;;;X
EVT_8015107_NAME;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;Submission of Tibet;;;X
EVT_8015107_DESC;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;Our coup succeeded as the Dalai Lama is in our hands and his followers are on his knees, too scared to raise their arms to defend themselves. We may do as we please, create a puppet autonomous state when we will introduce our ideals behind traditional Tibetan facade, or we may make our soldiers march in and end Tibetan separatism one and for all.;;;X
EVT_8015107_A;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;Our soldiers will bring them communism;;;X
EVT_8015107_B;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;Those monks are good comrades;;;X
EVT_8015108_NAME;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;People's Republic of Tibet;;;X
EVT_8015108_DESC;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;Tibet, now under Chinese control, is set to experience sweeping changes in social structure and the traditional way of life. Even though formally, Tibetans are to be allowed to maintain their way of living intact, the incoming Cultural Revolution is going to bring them communism in a similar fashion as it was brought to the China proper. ;;;X
EVT_8015108_A;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;Red banners fly above Lhasa;;;X
EVT_8015109_NAME;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;;;X
EVT_8015109_DESC;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;;;X
EVT_8015109_A;Organize the training;Organize the training;Organize the training;Organize the training;Organize the training;Organize the training;Organize the training;Organize the training;;;X
EVT_8015109_B;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;;;X
EVT_8015110_NAME;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;Camp Hale;;;X
EVT_8015110_DESC;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;From 1959 to 1964, Tibetan guerrillas were secretly trained at Camp Hale by the CIA. The site was chosen because of the similarities of the terrain with the Himalayan Plateau. The Tibetans nicknamed the camp 'Dhumra', meaning 'The Garden'.;;;X
EVT_8015110_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015110_B;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;Tibet is far away and of little interest;;;X
EVT_8015111_NAME;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;Victory over Communist China;;;X
EVT_8015111_DESC;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty People's Liberation Army turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Beijing seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;;;X
EVT_8015111_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015120_NAME;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;Subjugation of Tibet;;;X
EVT_8015120_DESC;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we demand Tibetans to peacefully surrender their freedom, which they may or may not accept, or will we let keep their traditional political and social structure in place and revoke our plans for Tibet?;;;X
EVT_8015120_A;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;Demand them to join;;;X
EVT_8015120_B;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;Let them remain free;;;X
EVT_8015121_NAME;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;Chinese demands;;;X
EVT_8015121_DESC;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible. Shall we accept the inevitable or will we fight for our freedom in our mountain redoubt?;;;X
EVT_8015121_A;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;Take up the arms;;;X
EVT_8015121_B;There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);There is no point in fighting (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8015122_NAME;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;Annexation of Tibet;;;X
EVT_8015122_DESC;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;After consolidating his power in the China proper, Chiang Kai Shek asked Tibet to peacefully accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet based on centuries long tradition of Chinese superiority in this area. Tibetans were reluctant to accept the agreement but success of Chinese forces in fighting communists during civil war a couple of years earlier imprinted notion that the Chinese dragon is once again invincible.;;;X
EVT_8015122_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015123_NAME;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;Victory over Nationalist China;;;X
EVT_8015123_DESC;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;Mighty Chiang Kai-Shek's armies turned out to be unable to overcome difficulties of fighting in mountaineous terrain of Tibet and lost their will to fight. Nanking seems losing their interest in conquering barren plateaus of Tibet and their prestige value is not high enough for them either. They reluctantly agree to enter peace talks and allow us to retain full sovereignty, with our freedom, tradition and religion defended for the next generations.;;;X
EVT_8015123_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015124_NAME;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;Integration of Tibet;;;X
EVT_8015124_DESC;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;After full subjugation of Tibet, we are free once again to claim these lands again as undivisible part of our great nation.;;;X
EVT_8015124_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015408_NAME;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;Habib Bourguiba;;;X
EVT_8015408_DESC;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;Habib Bourguiba, Tunisian statesman and the first president of the country, resumed campaigning for Tunisian independence after the war. He travelled continuously to the different Arab countries, members of the newly born Arab League, Europe, to Asia, and USA to promote the Tunisian aspiration for independence and met with high and influential personalities to help the Tunisian cause. On September 8, 1949, Bourguiba returned to Tunis to reorganise the Party and resume his direct contact policy with the population by visiting small towns and villages throughout the country.\n\nIn April 1950, he laid out a seven-point program aiming at ending the system of direct administration in Tunisia and restoring full Tunisian sovereignty as a final step to independent statehood. In 1951, he embarked on a second round of trips to promote his program at the international level. In light of the French Government refusal to concede to national claims, Bourguiba toughened his stance and called for unlimited resistance and general insurrection. This tactic led to his arrest on January 18, 1952 and his confinement in Tabarka, then Remada then in La Galite and finally Groix Island at the Ferte Castle.\n\nJune 1, 1955 saw the return of Bourguiba. The 'Internal Autonomy Agreement' was a big step to total independence. After several arduous negotiations, independence was proclaimed on March 20, 1956, with Habib Bourguiba as president of the 'National Constituent Assembly', and Head of the Government.\n\nOn July 25, 1957, a republic was proclaimed abolishing the monarchy and investing Bourguiba with powers of President of the Republic. Bourguiba's long and powerful presidency was formative for the creation of the Tunisian state and nation.;;;X
EVT_8015408_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015505_NAME;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;Military Coup of 1960;;;X
EVT_8015505_DESC;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;The military coup in Turkey, 1960 was a coup d'état staged by a group of Turkish army officers, against the democratically elected government of the Democrat Party on 27 May 1960. The leaders of the coup made General Cemal Gürsel, who had not taken any role in the coup, head of state, prime minister and the minister of defence upon completion of the military take-over. The military junta returned the power to civilians 17 months later in October 1961, after General Gürsel resisted the continuation of military rule.\n\nPresident Celal Bayar, prime minister Adnan Menderes and some members of the cabinet were arrested and put on trial before a kangaroo court appointed by the junta on the island Yass?ada in the Sea of Marmara. The politicians were charged with high treason, misuse of public funds and abrogation of the constitution. The tribunals ended with the execution of Adnan Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rüºtü Zorlu and Minister of Finance Hasan Polatkan on ?mral? island on 16 September 1961.\n\nAfter a brief period of unlimited rule, a farewell letter was sent by him, advocating and urging the army to stay out of politics, was forwarded to all units of the armed forces at the time of his departure on leave. Cemal Gürsel's statement read: 'Always hold high the honor of the army and the uniform you wear. Protect yourselves from the current ambitious and harmful political atmosphere in the country. Stay away from the politics at all cost. This is of utmost importance to your honor, the army's might and the future of the country.' He went to ?zmir where he became the president of the Anti-Communism Association of Turkey.;;;X
EVT_8015505_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015712_NAME;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;Tupamaros Movement;;;X
EVT_8015712_DESC;"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";"Tupamaros, also known as the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional-Tupamaros), was an urban guerrilla organization in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s supported by Soviet Union. The MLN-T is inextricably linked to its most important leader, Raúl Sendic, and his brand of social politics.\n\nAt the beginning, it abstained from armed actions and violence; they have always made clear about not being a guerrilla group but a political movement; the eventual use of violent means would be made according to strategy and possibilities. It was later when the The Tupamaro movement engaged then in political kidnappings, 'armed propaganda' and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent documented to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.";;;X
EVT_8015712_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8015801_NAME;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;Presidential Elections of 1948;;;X
EVT_8015801_DESC;"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";"The United States presidential election of 1948 is considered by most historians as the greatest election upset in American history. Virtually every prediction (with or without public opinion polls) indicated that incumbent President Harry S. Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas E. Dewey. Truman won, overcoming a three-way split in his own party. Truman's surprise victory was the fifth consecutive win for the Democratic Party in a presidential election. As a result of the 1948 congressional election, the Democrats would regain control of both houses of Congress. \n\nUnder Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. “Give 'em hell, Harry,” was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught.\n\nIn the campaign's final days many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new 'Dewey Presidency'. On election night — November 2 — Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City, Missouri and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.\n\nThe Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory it printed “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” on election night as its headline for the following day. A famous photograph taken the next morning showed Truman grinning and holding up a copy of the newspaper.";;;X
EVT_8015801_A;Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);Harry S. Truman (Democratic);;;X
EVT_8015801_B;Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);Thomas E. Dewey (Republican);;;X
EVT_8015802_NAME;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;Presidential Elections of 1952;;;X
EVT_8015802_DESC;"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";"The United States presidential election of 1952 took place in an era when Cold War tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was escalating rapidly. In the United States Senate, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become a national figure after chairing congressional investigations into the issue of Communist spies within the U.S. government. McCarthy's so-called 'witch hunt', combined with national tension and weariness after two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War, the Communist Revolution in China, the 1949 Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the early-1950s recession, set the stage for a hotly fought presidential contest.\n\nThe Republican candidate, a popular World War II general, Eisenhower campaigned by attacking 'Korea, Communism and Corruption' - that is, what the Republicans regarded as the failures of the outgoing Truman administration to deal with these issues. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of 'harboring' Communist spies within the federal government; and they blasted the Truman Administration for the numbers of officials who had been accused of various crimes.\n\nIn return, the Democrats criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy and other GOP conservatives as 'fearmongers' who were recklessly trampling on the civil liberties of government employees. Many Democrats were particularly upset when Eisenhower, decided not to give a speech he had written criticizing McCarthy's methods, and then allowed himself to be photographed shaking hands with McCarthy as if he supported him. Truman, formerly friends with Eisenhower, never forgot what he saw as a betrayal.\n\nDespite these mishaps, however, Eisenhower had retained his enormous personal popularity from his leading role in World War II, and huge crowds turned out to see him around the nation. His campaign slogan, 'I Like Ike', was one of the most popular in American history. Eisenhower maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout most of the campaign. On election day – November 4, 1952 – Eisenhower won a decisive victory, taking over 55 percent of the popular vote and winning 39 of the 48 states. He took three Southern states that the Republicans had won only once since Reconstruction: Virginia, Florida, and Texas.";;;X
EVT_8015802_A;Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);;;X
EVT_8015802_B;Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);;;X
EVT_8015803_NAME;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;Presidential Elections of 1956;;;X
EVT_8015803_DESC;"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";"The United States presidential election of 1956 saw a popular Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully run for re-election. The 1956 election was a rematch of 1952, as Eisenhower's opponent in 1956 was Democrat Adlai Stevenson, whom Eisenhower had defeated four years earlier. Incumbent President Eisenhower was popular, but had health conditions that became a quiet issue. Stevenson remained popular with a core of liberal Democrats but held no office and had no real base. Both largely ignored the civil rights issue. Eisenhower had ended the Korean War and the nation was prosperous, so a landslide for the charismatic Eisenhower was never in doubt.\n\nStevenson campaigned hard against Eisenhower, with television ads for the first time being the dominant medium for both sides. Because Eisenhower's 1952 election victory was due, in large part, to winning the female vote, there were a plethora of 'housewife' focused ads. But television also allowed Eisenhower, with his troubling health, to reach people across the country without enduring the strain of repeated coast-to-coast travel, making a national campaign more feasible. Stevenson proposed significant increases in government spending for social programs and treaties with the Soviet Union to lower military spending and end nuclear testing on both sides. He also proposed to end the military draft and switch to an 'all-volunteer' military. Eisenhower publicly opposed these ideas, even though in private he was working on a proposal to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Eisenhower had retained the enormous personal and political popularity he had earned during World War II, and he maintained a comfortable lead in the polls throughout the campaign. The Eisenhower administration had also supported the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954; this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools. As a result, Eisenhower won the support of nearly 40 percent of black voters; he was the last Republican presidential candidate to receive such a level of support from black voters.\n\nOn election day Eisenhower took over 57 percent of the popular vote and won 41 of the 48 states. Stevenson won only six Southern states and the border state of Missouri. Eisenhower carried Louisiana, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reconstruction in 1876.";;;X
EVT_8015803_A;Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican);;;X
EVT_8015803_B;Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic);;;X
EVT_8015804_NAME;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;Presidential Elections of 1960;;;X
EVT_8015804_DESC;"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";"The United States presidential election of 1960 was held on November 8, 1960. The incumbent president, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not eligible to run again. The Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts. The election turned out to be very closely matched. Kennedy's campaigning skills outmatched Nixon's: the key turning point of the campaign were the four Kennedy-Nixon debates, where Kennedy made predominantly better impression on the viewers; they were the first presidential debates held on television, and thus attracted enormous publicity. In the end, Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried little weight, and he wasted energy by campaigning in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded campaign organization to win the nomination, secure endorsements, and with the aid of the last of the big-city bosses to get out the vote in the big cities. A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his campaign was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion. However, Kennedy's campaign did take advantage of an opening when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil-rights leader, was arrested in Georgia while leading a civil rights march. Nixon refused to become involved in the incident, but Kennedy placed calls to local political authorities to get King released from jail. On election day, Kennedy won the black vote in most areas by wide margins, and this may have provided his margin of victory.\n\nBoth candidates also argued about the economy and ways in which they could increase the economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and make it accessible to more people (especially minorities). As the campaign moved into the final two weeks, the polls and most political pundits predicted a Kennedy victory. However, President Eisenhower, who had largely sat out the campaign, made a vigorous campaign tour for Nixon over the last 10 days before the election.\n\nThe election on November 8, 1960, remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. It was not until the afternoon of November 9 that Nixon finally conceded the election, and Kennedy claimed victory. In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point —the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century.";;;X
EVT_8015804_A;John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);John F. Kennedy (Democratic);;;X
EVT_8015804_B;Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);Richard M. Nixon (Republican);;;X
EVT_8015805_NAME;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;Assassination of John F. Kennedy;;;X
EVT_8015805_DESC;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was fatally shot while traveling with his wife Jacqueline, Texas governor John Connally, and the latter's wife Nellie, in a Presidential motorcade. \n\nPresident Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas let to a luncheon with civic and business leaders in that city. As President Kennedy waved to the crowds on his right with his right arm upraised on the side of the limo, a shot entered his upper back, and exited his throat. Mrs. Kennedy then put her arms around him in concern. A second shot struck soon and entered the rear of President Kennedy's head, then exploded out a roughly oval-shaped hole from his head's rear and right side. Head matter, brain, blood, and skull fragments, covered the interior of the car.\n\nLee Harvey Oswald, the main suspect of the killing, was arrested approximately 70 minutes afterwards. Oswald resisted and was struck and forcibly restrained by the police. Oswald denied shooting anyone and claimed he was a patsy who was arrested because he had lived in the Soviet Union. Oswald's case never came to trial because two days later, he was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, live on American television. Arrested immediately after the shooting, Ruby later said that he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination.\n\nThe staff at Parkland Hospital's Trauma Room 1 who treated Kennedy observed that his condition was 'moribund', meaning that he had no chance of survival upon arriving at the hospital. At 1:00 p.m., CST the President was pronounced dead. 'We never had any hope of saving his life,' one doctor said. Vice-President Johnson (who had been riding two cars behind Kennedy in the motorcade through Dallas and was not injured) became President of the United States upon Kennedy's death. At 2:38 p.m. Johnson took the oath of office on board Air Force One just before it departed from Love Field.;;;X
EVT_8015805_A;Shocking news;Shocking news;Shocking news;Shocking news;Shocking news;Shocking news;Shocking news;Shocking news;;;X
EVT_8015806_NAME;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;McCarthyism;;;X
EVT_8015806_DESC;"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.\n\nThe most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.";;;X
EVT_8015806_A;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;Suppress Commies within our ranks;;;X
EVT_8015806_B;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;It's the land of the free;;;X
EVT_8015807_NAME;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;Hollywood blacklist;;;X
EVT_8015807_DESC;"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";"The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century list of screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals who were denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or suspected. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry.\n\nThe first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of 'Red Fascists and their sympathizers'; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus.";;;X
EVT_8015807_A;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;Weed out those saboteurs;;;X
EVT_8015808_NAME;Affluent society;Affluent society;Affluent society;Affluent society;Affluent society;Affluent society;Affluent society;Affluent society;;;X
EVT_8015808_DESC;"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. 'I am now a Keynesian in economics,' proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969.\n\nThe 'Baby Boom' saw a dramatic increase in fertility in the period 1942–1957; it was caused by delayed marriages and childbearing during depression years, a surge in prosperity, a demand for suburban single-family homes (as opposed to inner city apartments) and new optimism about the future. The boom crested about 1957, then slowly declined.";;;X
EVT_8015808_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8015809_NAME;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;Trial of the Rosenbergs;;;X
EVT_8015809_DESC;"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";"Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were Jewish American communists who were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war. The charges related to their passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history.\n\nLater decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but cast doubt on the level of Ethel's involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was controversial taken amidst anti-communist hysteria and had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name 'Rosenberg.' The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15-year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the German scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months of a 30-year sentence. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was 'in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.'";;;X
EVT_8015809_A;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;;;X
EVT_8015809_B;Just jail them;Just jail them;Just jail them;Just jail them;Just jail them;Just jail them;Just jail them;Just jail them;;;X
EVT_8015810_NAME;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;Civil Rights Movement;;;X
EVT_8015810_DESC;"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";"The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) refers to the movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) in Alabama; 'sit-ins' such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.\n\nNoted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.";;;X
EVT_8015810_A;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;Time for a change came;;;X
EVT_8015810_B;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;No changes to the current system!;;;X
EVT_8015811_NAME;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;I Have a Dream;;;X
EVT_8015811_DESC;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;I Have a Dream' was a 17-minute public speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. The speech, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was a defining moment of the American Civil Rights Movement, being delivered to over 200,000 civil rights supporters. Widely hailed as a masterpiece of rhetoric, King's speech resembles the style of a Baptist sermon. It appeals to such recognizable and widely respected sources as the Bible and invokes the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the United States Constitution.\n\nAt the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme of 'I have a dream', possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry, 'Tell them about the dream, Martin!' He had first delivered a speech incorporating some of the same sections in Detroit in June 1963, when he marched on Woodward Avenue with Walter Reuther and the Reverend C. L. Franklin, and had rehearsed other parts.\n\nThe speech was lauded in the days after the event, and was widely considered the high point of the March by contemporary observers. New York Times, noted that the event 'was better covered by television and the press than any event here since President Kennedy's inauguration.' An article in the Los Angeles Times commented that the 'matchless eloquence' displayed by King, 'a supreme orator' of 'a type so rare as almost to be forgotten in our age,' put to shame the advocates of segregation by inspiring the 'conscience of America' with the justice of the civil-rights cause.;;;X
EVT_8015811_A;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;Let Freedom ring!;;;X
EVT_8017801_NAME;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;Democratic Action Coup;;;X
EVT_8017801_DESC;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;In 1945 a civilian-military coup overthrew Medina Angarita and ushered in a three-year period of democratic rule under the mass membership Democratic Action, initially under Rómulo Betancourt.;;;X
EVT_8017801_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8017803_NAME;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;1948 Venezuelan Coup;;;X
EVT_8017803_DESC;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;The 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état took place on 27 November 1948, when Minister of Defense, Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the elected president Rómulo Gallegos. Gallegos had been elected in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1947 (generally believed to be the country's first honest election).;;;X
EVT_8017803_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8017804_NAME;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;Assassination of Carlos D. Chalbaud;;;X
EVT_8017804_DESC;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;Chalbaud, as one of the brightest officials of the Armed Forces associated with the group that overthrew Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945, was a member of the Government Revolutionary Junta which replaced Medina in power. He became Minister of Defence under the presidency of Rómulo Gallegos. In 1948 Chalbaud was among those who overthrew that government, being the titular head of the three-person junta. He was kidnapped and assassinated by a group led by Rafael Simon Urbina and his nephew Domingo Urbina, his kidnapping took place in Caracas in the now urbanized 'La Cinta' street, in Baruta.\n\nHis murder seems to be the unintended outcome of a failed kidnapping led by Rafael Simon Urbina who looked to overthrow the Chalbaud presidency. Some believe Urbina despised Delgado Chalbaud although others allege they were close until a falling out over politics split them apart. The day after the capture and imprisonment of Urbina, he was assassinated by orders of the Direction of National Security, effectively securing Pérez Jiménez's position as the strongman in Venezuela for the next several years.;;;X
EVT_8017804_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8017805_NAME;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;Era of Jimenez;;;X
EVT_8017805_DESC;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;Pérez Jiménez was the most powerful man in the junta (though Chalbaud was its titular President), and was suspected of being behind the death in office of Chalbaud, who died in a bungled kidnapping in 1950. When the junta unexpectedly lost the election it held in 1952, it ignored the results and Pérez Jiménez was installed as President, where he remained until 1958.;;;X
EVT_8017805_A;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;We decide the results!;;;X
EVT_8017805_B;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;Step down;;;X
EVT_8017807_NAME;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;Punto Fijo;;;X
EVT_8017807_DESC;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;Punto Fijo Pact was a formal arrangement arrived at between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Accion Democratica, COPEI and Union Republicana Democratica, for the acceptance of the 1958 presidential elections, and the preservation of the rising democratic regime. It was aimed at preserving Venezuelan democracy by respecting elections, by having the winners of said elections consider including members of the signing parties and others to positions of power in bids for national unity governments, and by having a basic shared program of government. Simultaneously, the pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties. Some claim that the accord allowed the rising Venezuelan democracy to survive in the 60's the leftist guerrilla movement as well as destabilisation attempts by the Dominican Republic's right wing dictator, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo.\n\nEventually this pact became a political distribution of power between the two main political parties that signed it originating a bipartite system that remained in placed until the end of 20th century.;;;X
EVT_8017807_A;Sign it;Sign it;Sign it;Sign it;Sign it;Sign it;Sign it;Sign it;;;X
EVT_8017807_B;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;The junta won't share power;;;X
EVT_8018013_NAME;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;Republic of Vietnam referendum;;;X
EVT_8018013_DESC;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;The State of Vietnam referendum of 1955 determined the future form of government of the State of Vietnam, the nation that was to become the Republic of Vietnam (widely known as South Vietnam). It was contested by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem, who proposed a republic, and former emperor Bao Dai who had abdicated as emperor in 1945 and at the time of the referendum held the title of head of state. Diem claimed to have won the election that was widely marred by electoral fraud with 98.2 percent of the vote. He ultimately received over 386,000 more votes than the total number of registered voters.\n\nThe referendum was the last phase in the power struggle between Bao Dai and his prime minister. Bao Dai disliked Diem and had frequently attempted to undermine him, having appointed him only because he was a conduit to American aid.  Diem scheduled a referendum for 23 October 1955, and pushed Bao Dai out of the political scene, despite the former emperor's attempts to derail the poll. In the period leading up to the vote, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned, while Diem's election campaign focused on personal attacks against Bao Dai. After his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu successfully rigged the poll, Diem proclaimed himself president of the newly created Republic of Vietnam.;;;X
EVT_8018013_A;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;Votings are successfully rigged!;;;X
EVT_8018013_B;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;The Emperor wins anyway;;;X
EVT_8018014_NAME;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;Buddhist Rebellion;;;X
EVT_8018014_DESC;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;The regime's relations with the U.S. worsened during 1963, as well as heightening discontent among South Vietnam's Buddhist majority. In May, Buddhists were prohibited from displaying Buddhist flags during Vesak celebrations. This led to a protest, suppressed by Diem's forces, killing nine unarmed civilians. Although the provincial chief expressed sorrow for the killings, they denied that government forces were responsible for the killings and blamed the Vietcong.;;;X
EVT_8018014_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8018015_NAME;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;Dissolution of Indochinese Union;;;X
EVT_8018015_DESC;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887 and more provinces were added in the course of next decades. After the Second World War, this federation of different peoples was seen as increasingly harder to maintain and France was under pressure to carve separate countries out of this region, even if retaining economic and political influence over the whole area.;;;X
EVT_8018015_A;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;Divide our colony;;;X
EVT_8018015_B;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;Let things remain as they are;;;X
EVT_8018203_NAME;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;Yemen Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8018203_DESC;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;Shortly after assuming power in 1962, Ahmad's son, the Crown Prince Muhammad al-Badr was deposed by revolutionary forces, who took control of Sanaa and created the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt assisted the republican forces while Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic starting the North Yemen Civil War. Conflict continued periodically until 1967 when Egyptian troops were withdrawn.;;;X
EVT_8018203_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8020210_NAME;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;;;X
EVT_8020210_DESC;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;;;X
EVT_8020210_A;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;Start dissolution of the Raj;;;X
EVT_8020210_B;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;Stop this process until it accelerates;;;X
EVT_8020211_NAME;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;Separation of Burma;;;X
EVT_8020211_DESC;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;The surrender of the Japanese brought a military administration to Burma. After the war ended, the British Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith returned. The restored government established a political program that focused on physical reconstruction of the country and delayed discussion of independence. While the other parts of British Raj were preparing themselves to be divided into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, Burma went its own road as a separate dependent state of the British Empire, and soon an independent country.;;;X
EVT_8020211_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8020212_NAME;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;;;X
EVT_8020212_DESC;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;;;X
EVT_8020212_A;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;Let them go their own way;;;X
EVT_8020212_B;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;Stay in Burma for now;;;X
EVT_8020212_C;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;Stay in Burma forever!;;;X
EVT_8020213_NAME;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;Independence of Burma;;;X
EVT_8020213_DESC;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;A momentous event stunned Burma on 19 July 1947. U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet including his eldest brother Ba Win, the father of today's National League for Democracy exile-government leader Dr Sein Win, while meeting in the Secretariat. July 19 has since been commemorated since as Martyrs' Day. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on January 4, 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.;;;X
EVT_8020213_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8020214_NAME;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;;;X
EVT_8020214_DESC;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;;;X
EVT_8020214_A;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;Decide on partition of the Raj;;;X
EVT_8020214_B;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;Try to arrange a federated India;;;X
EVT_8020214_C;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;Stay there for now;;;X
EVT_8020215_NAME;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;Partition of British Raj;;;X
EVT_8020215_DESC;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove” policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.;;;X
EVT_8020215_A;Release the states;Release the states;Release the states;Release the states;Release the states;Release the states;Release the states;Release the states;;;X
EVT_8020220_NAME;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;Federation of All India;;;X
EVT_8020220_DESC;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;Contrary to what most advisors suggested, we withheld our plan to partition the British Raj and decided on a different plan, to create a federated India, one country for both Hindu and Muslims. Even though the proposal may seem well intended in principle, this move will surely result in decades of conflicts and clashes between hostile ethnicities.;;;X
EVT_8020220_A;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;It will be hard time;;;X
EVT_8214020_NAME;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;Our presence in India;;;X
EVT_8214020_DESC;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;British Raj was a jewel in British crown that was becoming more and more expensive each year. After World War 2, Indian political scene was ready for independence and there was mass support among the population for British to leave the country. Our insistence on leaving colonial structures intact brings a lot of problems and costs seem to far outweigh the benefits.;;;X
EVT_8214020_A;Give them independence;Give them independence;Give them independence;Give them independence;Give them independence;Give them independence;Give them independence;Give them independence;;;X
EVT_8214020_B;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;Remain there anyway;;;X
EVT_8020300_NAME;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;Free Territory of Trieste;;;X
EVT_8020300_DESC;"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";"The Free Territory of Trieste was a city-state situated in Central Europe between northern Italy and Yugoslavia, created by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of World War II and provisionally administered by an appointed American or British military governor commanding the peacekeeping American and British forces stationed there.\n\nThe Free Territory was decided on 10 February 1947 by a protocol of the Italian Peace Treaty in order to accommodate an ethnically and culturally mixed population in a neutral independent country. The intention was also to cool down territorial claims between Italy and Yugoslavia, due to its strategic importance for trade with Central Europe. It came into existence on 15 September 1947. It was divided into two zones: one being the port city of Trieste with a narrow coastal strip to the north west (Zone A); the other, larger (Zone B) was formed by a small portion of the north-western part of the Istrian peninsula. Official languages were Slovene, Italian and Croatian. However, the territory never received its planned self-government and it was maintained under military occupation respecting the division into two zones as decided by the Morgan Line.";;;X
EVT_8020300_A;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;Allow its formation;;;X
EVT_8020300_B;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;Prevent its formation at all cost;;;X
EVT_8020301_NAME;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;Fate of Free Territory of Trieste;;;X
EVT_8020301_DESC;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;;;X
EVT_8020301_A;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;Let's divide the territory;;;X
EVT_8020301_B;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;We want Trst for ourselves!;;;X
EVT_8020302_NAME;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;Annexation of Free Territory of Trieste;;;X
EVT_8020302_DESC;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;On 5 October 1954, the London Memorandum was signed in the British capital by ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It gave former Zone A with Trieste to Italy for an ordinary civil administration, and Zone B, which had already incorporated a communist government since 1947, to Yugoslavia. In addition, Yugoslavia was given several villages in the Muggia municipality that had been part of Zone A: Plavje, Spodnje Škofije, Jelarji, Hrvatini, Kolomban, Cerej, Premanèan and Barizoni. The castle and village of Socerb above San Dorligo della Valle was also ceded to Yugoslavia.;;;X
EVT_8020302_A;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;That's the best outcome;;;X
EVT_8020303_NAME;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;Yugoslavs push the Trieste issue;;;X
EVT_8020303_DESC;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;Even though Yugoslav government was initially ready to solve the Trieste issue and divide the area along the occupation lines, Tito's stance hardened since then and he wants us to leave Trieste and award it to socialist Yugoslavia as a part of war reparations. The Allied troops still station in Trieste so we shouldn't be intimidated too much but still we may make a gesture of kindness to ease tensions between two countries.;;;X
EVT_8020303_A;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;We will stay in Trieste;;;X
EVT_8020303_B;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;We'll transfer the city to Yugoslavia;;;X
EVT_8020304_NAME;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;Trst is ours!;;;X
EVT_8020304_DESC;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;Thanks to good will of Italians and our strong pressure, the city of Trst joins Slovenia to push our boundaries even further west! Acquisition of such an important city will be beneficial for our industry and commerce.;;;X
EVT_8020304_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8020510_NAME;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;Morning Star flag;;;X
EVT_8020510_DESC;"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";"After territorial elections in January 1961 a New Guinea Council consisting of 28 members were sworn into office by Governor Dr. P.J.Platteel on 1 April 1961. An emergency session of this Council on 19 October 1961 in response to news that the Hague was considering transferring the West New Guinea territory first to United Nations and then Indonesian administration; the Council appointed a National Committee to draft a Manifesto expressing the desire for independence, and to design a flag and anthem commensurate with this desire. The design of the flag is credited to Nicolaas Jouwe. The full New Guinea Council endorsed these actions on 30 October 1961 and the first Morning Star flag was presented to Governor Platteel on 31 October 1961.\n\nThe Dutch authorities rejected the Morning Star flag as a national flag (nationale flag) but accepted it as a territorial flag (landsvlag) on November 18. Wary of Indonesia's reaction, they told the Council not to raise the flag before December, because the status of West New Guinea was still being debated in the United Nations General Assembly. The official raising of the flag took place on 1 December 1961 with National Committee Chairman Mr Inury.";;;X
EVT_8020510_A;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;Raise the new flag;;;X
EVT_8020510_B;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;Keep the Dutch standard;;;X
EVT_8021308_NAME;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;Hungarian Revolution is victorious!;;;X
EVT_8021308_DESC;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;In spite of huge disparity of power between Hungary and the rest of the communist world, even though forces on the international scene and factions within our country worked against us, we managed to prevail and show the world that brave resistance of few against many can change the history of each nation.;;;X
EVT_8021308_A;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;Victory of freedom!;;;X
EVT_8021308_B;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;Let the Party remain in power;;;X
EVT_8021309_NAME;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;;;X
EVT_8021309_DESC;"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";"In the immediate aftermath of thef failed Revolution, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested and several hundred executed. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees. With most of Budapest under Soviet control by 8 November, Kádár became Prime Minister of the ""Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government"" and General Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party. Few Hungarians rejoined the reorganized Party, its leadership having been purged under the supervision of the Soviet Presidium, led by Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Suslov. The new government attempted to enlist support by espousing popular principles of Hungarian self-determination voiced during the uprising, but Soviet troops remained.\n\nImre Nagy took refuge in the Embassy of Yugoslavia as Soviet forces overran Budapest. Despite assurances of safe passage out of Hungary by the Soviets and the Kádár government, Nagy and his group were arrested when attempting to leave the embassy on 22 November and executed after secret trials in June 1958. Their bodies were placed in unmarked graves in the Municipal Cemetery outside Budapest.";;;X
EVT_8021309_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8021312_NAME;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;Formation of Hungarian Working People's Party;;;X
EVT_8021312_DESC;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;The Hungarian Working People's Party (MDP) was the ruling communist party of Hungary from 1948 to 1956. It was formed by a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party (MKP) and the Social Democratic Party. Its leader was Matyas Rakosi until 1956, then Erno Gero in the same year for three months, and eventually Janos Kadar until the party's dissolution. Other minor legal Hungarian political parties were allowed to continue as independent coalition parties, entirely reliant on the MDP dominated government.\n\nLater, during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the party was reorganised into the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) by a circle of communists around Imre Nagy.;;;X
EVT_8021312_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8021313_NAME;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;The Rajk Trial;;;X
EVT_8021313_DESC;"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";"Laszlo Rajk was a Hungarian Communist; politician, Minister of Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs who eventually fell victim to Rakosi's show trials, probably, apart from the Communist parties' endemic power struggles, because he was a homegrown Communist, as opposed to the Stalin-backed Rákosi. László Rajk was accused of being a ""Titoist Spy"", an agent for western imperialism. During his time in prison, Rajk was tortured and was promised acquittal if he took responsibility for the charges brought against him. At his trial he confessed to all the charges brought against him. After his confession the prosecution decided, against the promise made, to call for the heaviest sentences to be brought down upon him and the other seven men who stood trial with him. Rajk was executed on October 15, 1949.";;;X
EVT_8021313_A;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;Pass the sentence;;;X
EVT_8022704_NAME;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;Tito-Stalin split;;;X
EVT_8022704_DESC;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;The Tito–Stalin Split was a conflict which resulted in Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948. This was the beginning of the Informbiro Period marked by poor relations with the USSR, until it came to an end in 1955. The friction that led to the ultimate split had many causes, many of which can be eventually linked to Tito's regional focus and his refusal to accept Moscow as the supreme Communist authority. Among other  things, Stalin was enraged by Tito's aspirations to merge Yugoslavia with Bulgaria, an idea with which he agreed in theory, but which had also taken place without prior Soviet consultation.;;;X
EVT_8022704_A;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;Denounce Stalinism!;;;X
EVT_8022704_B;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;Let's not tease Stalin;;;X
EVT_8022705_NAME;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;Yugoslavia falls under Soviet dictate;;;X
EVT_8022705_DESC;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;When Tito showed his subservience towards Stalin by clearly accepting his influence over Yugoslav matters, it became clear that Yugoslavia can no longer maintain its independent role in international politics.;;;X
EVT_8022705_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8022706_NAME;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;Resolution of Informbiro;;;X
EVT_8022706_DESC;"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";"Tito did not even attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. On June 28, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing ""nationalist elements"" gaining upper hand there. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions.\n\nThe expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states. After the expulsion, Tito suppressed those who supported the resolution, calling them ""Cominformists"". The other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged ""Titoists"".";;;X
EVT_8022706_A;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;Issue resolution;;;X
EVT_8022706_B;Be lenient;Be lenient;Be lenient;Be lenient;Be lenient;Be lenient;Be lenient;Be lenient;;;X
EVT_8022706_C;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;War upon Trotskyists!;;;X
EVT_8022707_NAME;War with USSR;War with USSR;War with USSR;War with USSR;War with USSR;War with USSR;War with USSR;War with USSR;;;X
EVT_8022707_DESC;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;Stalin adopted surprisingly hard stance towards our show of independence. We were brave enough to denounce his influence over Yugoslavia so now we will defend our position with tanks and rifles. May our battle-hardened mountain fighters stop swarms of foes once again!;;;X
EVT_8022707_A;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;;;X
EVT_8022708_NAME;War with Tito;War with Tito;War with Tito;War with Tito;War with Tito;War with Tito;War with Tito;War with Tito;;;X
EVT_8022708_DESC;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;Tito risked openly standing against the world of communism so now he will have this world at the gates of Belgrade.;;;X
EVT_8022708_A;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;;;X
EVT_8022709_NAME;Titoism;Titoism;Titoism;Titoism;Titoism;Titoism;Titoism;Titoism;;;X
EVT_8022709_DESC;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;Titoism formed a variant of Marxism–Leninism named after Josip Broz Tito, primarily used to describe the specific socialist system built in Yugoslavia after its refusal of the 1948 Resolution of the Cominform.\n\nElements of Titoism were characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country, being distinct from Joseph Stalin's Socialism in One Country theory.\n\nThroughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviet Union, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the Comecon and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of Stalinism as the most obvious manifestations of this. The Soviets and their satellite states usually accused Yugoslavia of Trotskyism and fascism, charges loosely based on Tito's samoupravljanje (self-management) and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and worker-owned industries). In these, the Soviet leadership saw the seeds of council communism or even corporatism.;;;X
EVT_8022709_A;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;Our path to Socialism;;;X
EVT_8022709_B;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;Let's stick to the Soviet system;;;X
EVT_8022710_NAME;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;Non-Aligned Movement;;;X
EVT_8022710_DESC;"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";"The Non-Aligned Movement formed as a group of states considering themselves not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito along with other renowned Asian and African leaders, to provide a middle ground between Western and Soviet political blocs.\n\nThe purpose of the organization was to ensure ""the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries"" in their ""struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.""";;;X
EVT_8022710_A;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;We are the third world power!;;;X
EVT_8022710_B;Don't bother;Don't bother;Don't bother;Don't bother;Don't bother;Don't bother;Don't bother;Don't bother;;;X
EVT_8022711_NAME;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;Victory over Titoists;;;X
EVT_8022711_DESC;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;Split with Tito resulted in bitter but unavoidable war, to bring back unity in the world of communism. After quick and massive intervention, we managed to beat Tito's forces quickly and decisively and can now recreate free and communist Yugoslavia.;;;X
EVT_8022711_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8022712_NAME;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;;;X
EVT_8022712_DESC;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;;;X
EVT_8022712_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8022713_NAME;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;Yugoslavia is defended;;;X
EVT_8022713_DESC;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;Split with Stalin resulted in bitter and horrifying war and the right to achieve communism by our own means was violated. Still, the heartless invaders could not beat our well-trained soldiers fortified in our mointaineous redoubts. We can claim victory and the Soviets have to agree to uneasy peace with us.;;;X
EVT_8022713_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8022714_NAME;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;Trial of Tito;;;X
EVT_8022714_DESC;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;After losing fight with Soviet aggressors, Tito and his followers today stand on a trial in Belgrade, sure to pay their price for standing openly in the way of the Man of Steel.;;;X
EVT_8022714_A;Guilty!;Guilty!;Guilty!;Guilty!;Guilty!;Guilty!;Guilty!;Guilty!;;;X
EVT_8022803_NAME;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;Claims over Kosovo;;;X
EVT_8022803_DESC;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;The Mukje Agreement was a treaty signed on August 2, 1943 in the Albanian village of Mukje between the nationalist Balli Kombetar and the communist National Liberation Movement on how to regulate the Albanian resistance in World War II and how to prepare for the future of Ethnic Albania. One of its goals was the creation of Greater Albania. A dispute arose concerning the status of Kosovo. Whereas the National Front proposed to fight for the integration of Kosova into Albania, the Communist representatives objected fiercely.\n\nAfter Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province. Before World War II, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had supported transferring Kosovo to Albania, but Yugoslavia's postwar communist regime insisted on preserving the country's prewar borders. In repudiating the 1943 Mukaj agreement under pressure from the Yugoslavs, Albania's communists had consented to restore Kosovo to Yugoslavia after the war. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.;;;X
EVT_8022803_A;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;We no longer claim it as ours;;;X
EVT_8022803_B;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;We'd better keep our options;;;X
EVT_8022804_NAME;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;Sino-Albanian alliance;;;X
EVT_8022804_DESC;"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";"In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with Marxism-Leninism. Mao condemned Nikita Khrushchev's alleged revisionism and was also critical of Yugoslavia. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers, unlike Soviet technicians who sometimes made more than three times the pay of Hoxha. Finally, Albania led the movement to give the People's Republic of China a seat in the UN, an effort made successful in 1971 and thus replacing the Republic of China's seat.\n\nOn 9 January, ""The 1964 Sino-Albanian Joint Statement"" was signed in Tirana. Like Albania, China defended the ""purity"" of Marxism by attacking both ""US imperialism"" as well as ""Soviet and Yugoslav revisionism"", both equally as part of a ""dual adversary"" theory.";;;X
EVT_8022804_NAME;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;We admire Mao;;;X
EVT_8022804_DESC;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;It's hardly viable;;;X
EVT_8022902_NAME;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;Death of Prince Kiril;;;X
EVT_8022902_DESC;Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';Kyril of Bulgaria, Prince of Preslav was the second son of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria and his first wife Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma. He was a younger brother of Boris III of Bulgaria and a prince regent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1944. Present at the death of his brother, Tsar Boris on 28 August 1943, Prince Kyril was appointed head of a regency council by the Bulgarian parliament, to act as Head of State until the late Tsar's son, Simeon II of Bulgaria, became 18. Prince Kyril, with the widowed Tsaritsa, Giovanna of Savoy, daughter of the Italian king, led the State Funeral for his brother Tsar Boris III on 5 September 1943 at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia, thereafter proceeding across the city to the main railway station where the funeral train waited to take the body to the 12th century Rila Monastery in the mountains. Thereafter the three consecutive governments made efforts to extricate themselves from Bulgaria's agreements with Germany.\n\nDespite Sofia's continuous diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, on 5 September 1944 that country declared war on Bulgaria and The Fatherland Front, a coalition of the Communist Party, and other left-wing parties executed a Soviet-backed military coup on 9 September and seized power. On the night of 1 February 1945, Kyril, former Prime Minister and Regent, along with a range of former cabinet ministers, royal advisors and 67 MPs were executed. Their death sentences had been pronounced earlier that day by a 'People's Tribunal.';;;X
EVT_8022902_A;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;By the verdict of People's Tribunal…;;;X
EVT_8022903_NAME;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;Exile of the Tsar;;;X
EVT_8022903_DESC;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;Simeon was born the son of Tsar Boris III and Tsaritsa Giovanna di Savoia and became Tsar on 28 August 1943 on the death of his father. Since Tsar Simeon was only six years old when he ascended the throne, his uncle Prince Kyril of Bulgaria, Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, and Lieutenant-General Nikola Mihailov Mihov of the Bulgarian Army were appointed regents.\n\nOn 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and three days later the Red Army entered the country without encountering resistance. On the next day, 9 September 1944, Prince Kyril and the other regents were deposed by a Soviet-backed coup and arrested. The three regents, all members of the last three governments, Parliament deputies, heads of the army and eminent journalists were executed by the Communists in February 1945\n\nThe royal family remained at Vrana Palace near Sofia, while new communist regents were appointed. On 15 September 1946, a plebiscite was held in the presence of the Soviet army. It allegedly resulted in over 97 percent approval for the Soviet established republic and abolished the monarchy. On 16 September 1946, the royal family was exiled from Bulgaria. The royal family first went to Alexandria, Egypt, where Queen Giovanna's father Victor Emanuel III, King of Italy, lived in exile. There, Simeon II finished Victoria College. In July 1951, the Spanish government of Francisco Franco granted asylum to the family.;;;X
EVT_8022903_A;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;Monarchy is gone!;;;X
EVT_8023107_NAME;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;Death of Jan Masaryk;;;X
EVT_8023107_DESC;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;Jan Garrigue Masaryk was a Czech diplomat and politician and Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia from 1940 to 1948. When a Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile was established in Britain in 1940, Masaryk was appointed Foreign Minister and remained on the post following the liberation of Czechoslovakia as part of the multi-party, communist-dominated National Front government. In February 1948 the majority of the non-communist cabinet members resigned, hoping to force new elections, but instead a communist government under Gottwald was formed in what became known as the Czech coup. Masaryk remained Foreign Minister, and was the only prominent minister in the new government who wasn't either a Communist or a fellow traveler. However, he was apparently uncertain about his decision and possibly regretted his decision not to oppose the communist coup by broadcasting to the Czech people on national radio, where he was a much loved celebrity.\n\nOn March 10, 1948 Masaryk was found dead, dressed in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial investigation by the communist ministry of interior stated that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, although for a long time it has been believed by some that he was murdered by the nascent Communist government.;;;X
EVT_8023108_NAME;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;The Prague Trial;;;X
EVT_8023108_DESC;"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";"The Slansky trial was a show trial against elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia who were thought to have adopted the line of the maverick Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. On 20 November 1952, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the KSÈ, and 13 other Communist leaders or bureaucrats, 11 of them Jews, were accused of participating in a Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy and convicted: 11 were executed and three sentenced to life imprisonment. \n\nThe trial was the result of a split within the Communist leadership on the degree to which the state should emulate the Soviet Union, and was part of a Joseph Stalin-inspired purge of ""disloyal"" elements in the national Communist parties in Central Europe, as well as a purge of Jews from the leadership of Communist parties. Klement Gottwald, president of Czechoslovakia and leader of the Communist Party, feared being purged, and decided to sacrifice Slánský, a longtime collaborator and personal friend who was the second-in-command of the party. The others were picked to convey a clear threat to different groups in the state bureaucracy. A couple of them were brutal sadists conveniently added for a more realistic show\n\nAfter Stalin's death in March 1953, the harshness of the persecutions slowly decreased, and the victims of the trial quietly received amnesty one by one, including those who had survived the Prague Trial.";;;X
EVT_8023108_A;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;Gottwald orchestrates the trial;;;X
EVT_8023108_B;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;Slansky manages to make preemptive strike;;;X
EVT_8023003_NAME;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;Deposition of King Michael;;;X
EVT_8023003_DESC;"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";"In 1944, when World War II was going badly for the Axis powers, King Michael joined a coup against Antonescu, and declared war on Germany. At the end of the war, King Michael was awarded the highest degree of the Legion of Merit by U.S. President and decorated with the Soviet Order of Victory by Joseph Stalin.\n\nIn March 1945, political pressures forced King Michael to appoint a pro-Soviet government dominated by the Romanian Communist Party since when King Michael functioned as little more than a figurehead.\n\nOn 30 December 1947 the royal palace was surrounded by thearmy units loyal to the Communists. Michael was allegedly forced at gun point (by either Petru Groza or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, depending on the source) to abdicate Romania's throne. Later the same day, the Communist-dominated government announced the 'permanent' abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a People's Republic. On 3 January 1948, Michael was forced to leave the country, followed by Princesses Elisabeth and Ileana, who collaborated so closely with the Soviets they became known as the King's ""Red Aunts.""";;;X
EVT_8023003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8023216_NAME;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;PKWN Manifesto;;;X
EVT_8023216_DESC;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;The Manifesto of the Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN) was a political manifesto of the Soviet-backed provisional government, which operated in opposition to the London-based Polish government in exile. It was officially proclaimed in Che³m on 22 July 1944, but its text was personally amended by Joseph Stalin in Moscow and it was printed there as well.\n\nThe manifesto is addressed to the Polish nation, both within Poland and in exile, asserting the sole legitimacy of the State National Council, rather than the London-based Polish government in exile. It condemned the Polish Constitution of 1935 as unlawful and fascist while offering promise of restoration of democratic freedoms, equality of all citizens without distinction of race, religion, or nationality, freedom of political organisations, unions, press and conscience.;;;X
EVT_8023216_A;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;PKWN is the true Polish government;;;X
EVT_8023216_B;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;Invite London Government to cooperate;;;X
EVT_8023217_NAME;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;3 x Yes Referendum;;;X
EVT_8023217_DESC;"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";"The People's Referendum of 1946, also known as the ""Three Times Yes"" referendum, was a referendum held in Poland on 30 June 1946 on the authority of the State National Council. The referendum presented an opportunity for the forces vying for political control of Poland following World War II to test their popularity among the general population.\n\nThe referendum comprised three separate questions. The first one concerned abolition of the Senate. The second one concerned acceptance of agricultural reform and nationalisation of industry. The last question regarded acceptance of new Polish borders in the West.\n\nThe results were forged and the referendum failed to meet democratic standards. The official results, showed that the ""yes"" votes on the three questions were given by 68,  77  and 91 percent of voters, respectively.Materials declassified after fall of communism showed that in fact only the third question received a majority of votes in favour. For three respective questions, ""yes"" was chosen by 27, 42 and 67 percent of voters.";;;X
EVT_8023217_A;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;Three Times Yes!;;;X
EVT_8023217_B;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;Results are inconclusive;;;X
EVT_8023218_NAME;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;Three-Year Plan;;;X
EVT_8023218_DESC;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;The Three-Year Plan of Reconstructing the Economy was a centralized plan created by the Polish communist government to rebuild Poland after the devastation of the Second World War. Carried out in the years 1947-1949, it is widely considered a success and the only efficient economic plan in the history of the People's Republic of Poland. It succeeded in its primary aim: largely rebuilding Poland from the devastation of the war, as well as in increasing output of Polish industry and agriculture.;;;X
EVT_8023218_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8023219_NAME;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;Foundation of PZPR;;;X
EVT_8023219_DESC;"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";"The Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) was the Marxist-Leninist Communist party which governed the People's Republic of Poland from 1948 to 1989. It was established at the unification congress of the Polish Workers' Party (PPR) and Polish Socialist Party (PPS) during meetings held from 15 to 21 December 1948. The unification was possible because the PPS activists who opposed absorption had been forced out of the party. Similarly, the members of the PPR who were accused of ""rightist – nationalistic deviation"" were expelled.\n\nBoles³aw Bierut, an NKVD agent, and a hard Stalinist served as first Secretary General from 1948 to 1956, playing a leading role in the Sovietisation of Poland and the installation of her most repressive regime. Bierut oversaw the trials of many Polish military leaders, such as General Stanis³aw Tatar and Brig. General Emil August Fieldorf, members of wartime underground movements, various Church officials and many other opponents of the new regime including the ""hero of Auschwitz"", Witold Pilecki, condemned to death during secret trials.";;;X
EVT_8023204_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8023220_NAME;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;Imprisonment of Gomulka;;;X
EVT_8023220_DESC;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;Rightist-nationalist deviation' was a political propaganda term used by the Polish Stalinists against prominent communist activists, such as Wladys³aw Gomulka and Marian Spychalski, who opposed Soviet involvement in the Polish interior affairs, as well as internationalism displayed by the creation of the Cominform and the subsequent merger that created the Polish communist party. It is believed that it was Joseph Stalin who put pressure on Boleslaw Bierut and Jakub Berman to remove Gomulka and Spychalski as well as their followers from power in 1948. It is estimated that over 25 percent of socialists were removed from power or expelled from political life.;;;X
EVT_8023220_A;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;Get rid of nationalists!;;;X
EVT_8023221_NAME;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;Six-Year Plan;;;X
EVT_8023221_DESC;"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";"Six-Year Plan (1950–1955) was the second - after the Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) - centralized plan of the People's Republic of Poland. By 1950 the Polish government was dominated by Stalinist hardliners, and liberal economists responsible for creation of the Three-Year Plan were no longer influencing government policy. The Six-Year Plan, designed to bring the economy of Poland in line with the Soviet economy, concentrated on heavy industrialization, with projects such as Nowa Huta (The New Steel Mill), located near the city of Krakow.\n\nFollowing the establishing of the communist regime in 1945, the authorities had encountered substantial resistance to their new regime from inhabitants of Krakow. To ""correct the class imbalance"", the authorities commenced building a satellite industrial town to attract people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to the region. Nowa Huta was started in 1949 and was to become an ideal town for the communist propaganda and populated mostly by industrial workers.\n\nIn contrast to the previous plan, the Six-Year Plan did not meet its targets and was only a moderate success. Among other factors, it caused great outflow of people from rural areas to cities but caused considerable problems with supply of consumer goods.";;;X
EVT_8023221_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8023222_NAME;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;Poznan protests;;;X
EVT_8023222_DESC;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;The Poznañ 1956 protests,were the first of several massive protests of the Polish people against the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. Demonstrations by workers demanding better conditions began on June 28, 1956, at Poznañ's Cegielski Factories and were met with violent repression.\n\nA crowd of approximately 100,000 gathered in the city center near the secret police building. The demonstrators demanded lower food prices, wage increases and the revocation of some recent changes in the law that had eroded workers' conditions. The demonstrators managed to acquire weapons from seized police stations and a military school. About 400 tanks and 10,000 soldiers of the Polish military and the Internal Security Corps under Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky were ordered to suppress the demonstration and during the pacification fired at the protesting civilians.\n\nThe death toll was placed between 57 and over a hundred people and the protests were successfully quelled. Nonetheless the Poznañ protests were an important milestone on the way to the installation of a less Soviet-controlled government in Poland in October.;;;X
EVT_8023222_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8023223_NAME;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;Polish Thaw;;;X
EVT_8023223_DESC;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;In 1956, shortly after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Polish communist party leadership split in two factions, dubbed Natolinians and Pu³awians. The Natolin faction - named after the place where its meetings took place, in a government villa in Natolin - were against the post-Stalinist liberalization programs (Gomulka thaw) and they proclaimed simple nationalist and antisemitic slogans as part of a strategy to gain power. The Pu³awian faction - the name comes from the Pu³awska Street in Warsaw, on which many of the members lived - sought considerable liberalization of socialism in Poland. After the events of Poznan protests in June, they successfully backed the candidature of W³adyslaw Gomulka for First Secretary of the party, just rehabilitated after period of denouncement as a right-wing reactionary.;;;X
EVT_8023223_A;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;Gomulka comes to power;;;X
EVT_8023223_B;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;Stalinists manage to maintain status quo;;;X
EVT_8023224_NAME;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;Recovered Territories;;;X
EVT_8023224_DESC;"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";"Recovered or Regained Territories (Polish: Ziemie Odzyskane) was an official term used by the People's Republic of Poland to describe those parts of pre-war Germany that became part of Poland after World War II. The rationale for the term ""Recovered"" was that these territories had been part of (or fiefs of) the Polish state at various times in history, mostly during the rule of the medieval Piast dynasty. It became the official propaganda term coined in the aftermath of World War II to denote the former eastern territories of Germany that were being handed over to Poland.\n\nThe underlying concept was to define post-war Poland as heir to the medieval Piasts' realm, which was simplified into a picture of an ethnically homogeneous state that matched post-war borders, as opposed to the later Jagiellon Poland, which was multi-ethnic and located further east. But the question of the Recovered Territories was one of the few issues that did not divide the Polish Communists and their opposition, and there was unanimity regarding the western border, helping bind population with the new regime more.\n\nGreat efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the Recovered Territories, even if prevented from doing so by foreign powers. By 1949 the term ""Recovered Territories"" had been dropped from Polish communist propaganda and the authorities began to refer to them instead as the ""Western and Northern Territories"" although the former term persisted unofficially for decades.\n\nIt was until the Treaty on the Final Settlement, signed in 1990, that the West German government regarded the status of the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse rivers as that of areas ""temporarily under Polish or Soviet administration"".";;;X
EVT_8023224_A;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;Boundary posts from Saale to Dnieper…;;;X
EVT_8023225_NAME;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;Cursed soldiers;;;X
EVT_8023225_DESC;"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";"The cursed soldiers (that is, ""accursed soldiers"" or ""damned soldiers"") is a name applied to a variety of Polish resistance movements formed in the later stages of World War II and afterwards. Created by some members of the Polish Secret State, these clandestine organizations continued their armed struggle against the Stalinist government of Poland well into the 1950s. The guerrilla warfare included an array of military attacks launched against the new communist prisons as well as MBP state security offices, detention facilities for political prisoners, and concentration camps set up across the country. Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by MBP security services and NKVD assassination squads. However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Jozef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.\n\nThe best-known Polish anti-communist resistance organizations operating in Stalinist Poland included Freedom and Independence (Wolnoœæ i Niezawis³oœæ, WIN), National Armed Forces (Narodowe Si³y Zbrojne, NSZ), National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe, NZW), Konspiracyjne Wojsko Polskie (Underground Polish Army, KWP), Ruch Oporu Armii Krajowej (Home Army Resistance, ROAK), Armia Krajowa Obywatelska (Citizens' Home Army, AKO), NIE (NO, short for Niepodleg³oœæ), Armed Forces Delegation for Poland (Delegatura Si³ Zbrojnych na Kraj), and Wolnoœæ i Sprawiedliwoœæ (Freedom and Justice, WiS). Similar eastern European anti-communists fought on in other countries.";;;X
EVT_8023225_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8028320_NAME;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;Fate of Ceylon;;;X
EVT_8028320_DESC;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;Following World War II, public pressure for independence of Ceylon increased and independence movement became even better organized. As we created a unified Federation of India, consisting of lands of Hindu and Muslim citizens of our former colony, it may make sense to let Ceylon join the already multicultural federation to introduce a third people into this uneasy bilateral coexistence. Still, we may offer Ceylon independence as our dominion and not meddle into affairs of India anymore.;;;X
EVT_8028320_A;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;Cede Ceylon to India;;;X
EVT_8028320_B;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;Create separate Dominion of Ceylon;;;X
EVT_8029710_NAME;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;;;X
EVT_8029710_DESC;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;;;X
EVT_8029710_A;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;Allow Tanzania to form;;;X
EVT_8029710_B;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;Retain control over Zanzibar;;;X
EVT_8029711_NAME;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar;;;X
EVT_8029711_DESC;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;Zanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. After tumultous period of dissent Britain was asked by Julius Nyerere to send in troops. Royal Marines Commandos were sent by air from England via Nairobi and 40 Commando came ashore from the aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark. Several months were spent with Commandos touring the country disarming military outposts. When the successful operation ended, the Royal Marines left to be replaced by Canadian troops.\n\nOn April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year. The name Tanzania is a blend of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and previously had no significance. Under the terms of this union, the Zanzibar Government retains considerable local autonomy.;;;X
EVT_8029711_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8200000_NAME;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;;;X
EVT_8200000_DESC;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;;;X
EVT_8200000_A;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;;;X
EVT_8200000_B;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;;;X
EVT_8200001_NAME;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;;;X
EVT_8200001_DESC;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;;;X
EVT_8200001_A;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;;;X
EVT_8200001_B;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;;;X
EVT_8200002_NAME;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;;;X
EVT_8200002_DESC;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. What is more, it is a perfect opportunity to lend a helping hand to Communist faction in China. As we are able to choose who should receive these provinces, it is obvious that we will use this chance to boost Mao's chance of gaining the upper hand.;;;X
EVT_8200002_A;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;Give them these lands;;;X
EVT_8200002_B;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;;;X
EVT_8200003_NAME;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;Ceding Chinese lands;;;X
EVT_8200003_DESC;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;After concluding our war with Japan we are left with sizeable portion of lands that were parts of China long before Empire of Japan started expansion there. The puppet governments of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia are defeated and we really do not have any strong reason for our continuous presence. There is no more a communist faction that we can support by giving them these lands and only imperialist and bloodthirsty followers of Chiang remained. Even though, can we really hold these lands perpetually? We may get rid of this burden and arrange a gift for Nationalists anyway.;;;X
EVT_8200003_A;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;Give them these lands back;;;X
EVT_8200003_B;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;It is in our interest not to give it up;;;X
EVT_8200004_NAME;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;;;X
EVT_8200004_DESC;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. It fills us with joy to see that our comrades are giving us a hand in our perilous struggle for one red China.;;;X
EVT_8200005_NAME;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;Getting back Chinese lands;;;X
EVT_8200005_DESC;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;We have just received a word that the some of lands once held by anti-Japanese Comintern coalition are being given back to us. Even though there is little love between us and the Reds, it's good to see they are honoring the long Chinese supremacy over these lands.;;;X
EVT_8200006_NAME;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;Soviet support for Communist China;;;X
EVT_8200006_DESC;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;We already won on the Far Eastern Front against retreating leftovers of once mighty Japan. Having amassed sizeable troops and supplies in the regions of Manchuria and Korea we can play roles of kingmakers in the struggle of supremacy over China. Communists under Mao are desperately waiting for much needed support that could balance out the help that Chiang receives from America. Nevertheless, we shouldn't probably give Mao more than limited support or else we may fear counteraction of the United States.;;;X
EVT_8200006_A;Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);Give limited support (supplies only);;;X
EVT_8200006_B;Give no support;Give no support;Give no support;Give no support;Give no support;Give no support;Give no support;Give no support;;;X
EVT_8200006_C;Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);Give considerable support (supplies and troops);;;X
EVT_8200006_D;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;Propose alliance!;;;X
EVT_8200007_NAME;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;Soviet limited support;;;X
EVT_8200007_DESC;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;We received limited support from the Soviet Union - old trucks and some supplies from the defeated Kwantung Army. While it is not what we may have dreamt about, every help is vital in this war.;;;X
EVT_8200007_A;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;;;X
EVT_8200008_NAME;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;Soviet considerable support;;;X
EVT_8200008_DESC;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. Our chances in this war get another boost.;;;X
EVT_8200008_A;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;We will put it to good use;;;X
EVT_8200009_NAME;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;Total Soviet support;;;X
EVT_8200009_DESC;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;We received considerable support from the Soviet Union - transportation equipment, a lot of supplies and fully-armed divisions of volunteers. But what is the most important, we have a unique possibility to enter the war together to unite our forces. Mind however that the US and other capitalist countries of the West may not take this open alliance lightly.\n\nIf it really bothers us we may politely decline alliance and still receive considerable if indirect support in supplies and troops.;;;X
EVT_8200009_A;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;Alliance of the working class!;;;X
EVT_8200009_B;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;We have a different vision of Communism;;;X
EVT_8200010_NAME;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;American proposal of temporary ceasefire in China;;;X
EVT_8200010_DESC;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;United States were actively seeking resolution to the Chinese problem. To further this goal they sent George C. Marshall, a renowned military leader, with a mission to let both sides negotiate and ultimately end the civil war that was on temporary hold. Marshall arrived in China on December 20, 1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists with the hope that a strong, non-Communist China, would act as a bulwark against the encroachment of the Soviet Union. Immediately, Marshall drew both sides into negotiations which would last for nearly two years.\n\nEven though his mission ultimately failed, he did postpone military resolution to the conflict for a little more than a year.;;;X
EVT_8200010_A;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;Propose ceasefire;;;X
EVT_8200010_B;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;Let's leave matters as they are;;;X
EVT_8200011_NAME;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;;;X
EVT_8200011_DESC;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;;;X
EVT_8200011_A;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;;;X
EVT_8200011_B;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;;;X
EVT_8200012_NAME;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;Temporary ceasefire;;;X
EVT_8200012_DESC;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;A critical event was the January 1946 cease fire mediated by George Marshall. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.\n\nIt is however tough for Chiang to openly reject plans of his American benefactor as this may be his only chance to peacefully unite China.;;;X
EVT_8200012_A;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;Agree;;;X
EVT_8200012_B;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;;;X
EVT_8200013_NAME;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;Temporary ceasefire of 1946;;;X
EVT_8200013_DESC;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;The ceasefire between Nationalist and Communist factions in China was mediated by George Marshall as the first achievements of his ultimately failed peace mission. Contrary to the wish of its proponent, it benefited Mao greatly and bought time for Communists to gather fruits of Soviet support and use equipment left by the Japanese. It made the future war much tougher for Nationalists also because some of the former warlords and former Japanese collaborators who weren't getting paid anymore switched sides.;;;X
EVT_8200013_A;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;At least it's peace for now;;;X
EVT_8200014_NAME;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;End of temporary ceasefire of 1946;;;X
EVT_8200014_DESC;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;In spite of ceasefire agreement, the situation between Chiang's and Mao's factions in China was tense. The negotations were fruitless and after a long year of talks it became clear that this non-agression deal serves no-one's interests. Significant agreements failed to appear, as both sides used the time to further prepare themselves for the ensuing conflict. Finally, exasperated with the failure of the negotiations, Marshall left China.;;;X
EVT_8200014_A;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;We sense the war coming;;;X
EVT_8200020_NAME;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;Continue Marshall Mission;;;X
EVT_8200020_DESC;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;Mission of George Marshall, which was to bring peace to China and reconcile both sides of the conflict, continued throughout 1946 and 1947 even if it brought no tangible results. Still, Americans hoped for the slim chance that the warring parties can forget their differences and create a unity government for the whole China.;;;X
EVT_8200020_A;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;Try to continue peace talks;;;X
EVT_8200020_B;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;Don't bother, it's a lost cause;;;X
EVT_8200021_NAME;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;;;X
EVT_8200021_DESC;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;;;X
EVT_8200021_A;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;;;X
EVT_8200021_B;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;;;X
EVT_8200022_NAME;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;Proposal of unity government;;;X
EVT_8200022_DESC;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;Americans, who acted as mediators, had in mind a common government for the whole China which could help in reining in hardline communists and could adopt a moderate program. The proposal was hard to accept for Kuomintang which for years dealt harshly with leftists in their lines and even harder for Communists who felt they became strong enough to try military resolution and couldn't accept entering the deal on equal terms.;;;X
EVT_8200022_A;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;We find nothing in common;;;X
EVT_8200022_B;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;Accept unity government;;;X
EVT_8200023_NAME;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;Chinese Unity Government;;;X
EVT_8200023_DESC;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;Hard negotations succeeded and both Nationalist and Communists agreed to hedge their bets and form a unified government that will govern the whole country from Nanking. That means that we have to accept a sizeable group of communist politicians, activists and military leaders in our ranks which will undoubtedly be hard to manage. This may be the only chance of achieving unity, though.\n\nThis move doesn't mean that Communists are going to give up their arms. While participating in the government they will retain their mountain bases with armed partisans to let them back their words with force, if necessary.;;;X
EVT_8200023_A;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;A government for whole China;;;X
EVT_8200024_NAME;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;Final unification of China?;;;X
EVT_8200024_DESC;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;Communists are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang and his close advisors feel that the system is crumbling and he must act quick if the unification process is to succeed. On the nearest assembly of the all-China parliament he is going to demand that Communists disband their militias and accept governmental administration in their deepest strongholds. The proposal has a slim chance of success but by no means it's a sensible demand and Communist moderates may prevail to accept our terms.\n\nYou may choose to use all your influence and press hard on the issue or just suggest discussion on the subject. If Mao feels endangered, the Communists may not only reject the terms but carry out an instant attack. Otherwise, the subject will probably cause little stir, and disgusted Communists will leave the government for good.;;;X
EVT_8200024_A;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;Present an ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8200024_B;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;Make just a suggestion;;;X
EVT_8200025_NAME;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;Chiang's ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8200025_DESC;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, demanded that we disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;;;X
EVT_8200025_A;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;React with force on those despicable demands;;;X
EVT_8200025_B;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;;;X
EVT_8200025_C;Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8200026_NAME;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;Chiang's proposal;;;X
EVT_8200026_DESC;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;We are taking part in the unity government but it's a love and hate relationship. The work of cooperative commissions becomes harder and both sides display even more and more confrontative behavior. Chiang, probably feeling that the system is crumbling, started a discussion aimed at making us disband our militias and accept governmental administration in our deepest strongholds. This proposal seems outrageous as we will give up our primary means of influence but some of our moderate comrades, or right-wing traitors as we may call them, discuss this possibility. The nation grew weary of constant warfare but will we allow to cave in and serve imperialist interests once more?;;;X
EVT_8200026_A;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;Reject it and leave the government;;;X
EVT_8200026_B;Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);Accept unity government (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8200027_NAME;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;Unity government in one China;;;X
EVT_8200027_DESC;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;When Marshall began his mediation in China it seemed that it would be pointless in a country divided between two great forces and a multitude of smaller groups of interest. The Chinese, thanks to persistence of Chiang and sidelining of Mao's far-left circles, managed to reconcile their differences and the Communist militias, which have fough a partisan war for 20 years, are disbanding in this very moment. It's no doubt that the country will wait several years for full stability but at least it will be unified again.;;;X
EVT_8200027_A;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;;;X
EVT_8200028_NAME;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;Communists leave unity government;;;X
EVT_8200028_DESC;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;Communists decided they can no longer form a common government and left immediately the ongoing parliament assembly.;;;X
EVT_8200030_NAME;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_8200030_DESC;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Communist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;;;X
EVT_8200030_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8200030_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8200031_NAME;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_8200031_DESC;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;;;X
EVT_8200031_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8200031_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8200032_NAME;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_8200032_DESC;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;Tensions between us and the Nationalist forces are mounting. It is hard to endure it any longer and there is a place for only one China - ours or theirs. We can carry out a full-scale attack and solve this conflict one and for all.;;;X
EVT_8200032_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8200032_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8200033_NAME;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;;X
EVT_8200033_DESC;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;;X
EVT_8200033_A;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;X
EVT_8200033_B;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;X
EVT_8200033_C;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;X
EVT_8200034_NAME;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;The Northeastern China IJA Arsenal;X
EVT_8200034_DESC;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;After the surrender of Japan, a considerable amount of equipment remained in Northwestern China. While much of the better equipment the IJA garrisons used were shipped off to theaters in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, the supplies were still considerably better than what the average soldier had. Both Nationalist and Communist forces scrambled to collect as much of these resources before a possible renewal of the civil war.;X
EVT_8200034_A;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;We get a lot of equipment;X
EVT_8200034_B;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;We get some equipment;X
EVT_8200034_C;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;We get little amounts of equipment;X
EVT_8200035_NAME;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;Delaying IJA Withdrawal;X
EVT_8200035_DESC;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave us unprepared to administer the area and likely see it to fall to communist hands. Given Japan has already surrendered, should we seek agreement among the Allies for delaying the Japanese withdrawal from Manchuria until we can send some troops there?;X
EVT_8200035_A;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;Seek support among the Allies;X
EVT_8200035_B;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;Let IJA withdraw, it's a lost cause;X
EVT_8200036_NAME;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;X
EVT_8200036_DESC;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;X
EVT_8200036_A;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;X
EVT_8200036_B;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;X
EVT_8200037_NAME;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;X
EVT_8200037_DESC;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;X
EVT_8200037_A;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;X
EVT_8200037_B;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;X
EVT_8200038_NAME;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;Support fro delaying Japanese withdrawal from China;X
EVT_8200038_DESC;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;A rapid withdraw of Japanese troops from Manchuria would leave KMT unprepared to administer the area and likely see parts of it to fall to communist hands. Given that Japan has already surrendered, shall we help Chiang stabilize the area and allow Japanese troops to leave mainland gradually or shall we make them leave at once, as expected, but leave those provinces for various factions to control?;X
EVT_8200038_A;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;Let KMT delay the Japanese;X
EVT_8200038_B;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;The Japanese must leave at once!;X
EVT_8200039_NAME;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;Power Vacuum;X
EVT_8200039_DESC;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;After the war with the Japanese ended, Chiang Kai-shek quickly moved KMT troops to newly liberated areas to prevent Communist forces from receiving the Japanese surrender. Historically, the United States airlifted many KMT troops from central China to the Northeast (Manchuria). President Truman was very clear about what he described as 'using the Japanese to hold off the Communists'. Using the pretext of 'receiving the Japanese surrender', business interests within the KMT government occupied most of the banks, factories and commercial properties, which had previously been seized by the Imperial Japanese Army.\n\nStill, in spite of all those attempts, lack of unanimity among the Allies to let Japanese troops stay in China for longer meant that the occupied areas could not be wholly regained and communists could manage to get their precious foothold in Manchuria.;X
EVT_8200039_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;X
EVT_8200040_NAME;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;;;X
EVT_8200040_DESC;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.\n\nThanks to influx of determined volunteers and better organization of their troops, Communists receive sizeable bonuses to morale and organization of their infantry.;;;X
EVT_8200040_A;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;;;X
EVT_8200041_NAME;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;Chinese Civil War ends;;;X
EVT_8200041_DESC;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;After the war, the unparalleled fervor and willingness to sacrifice of Communist troops waned and the Party started to consolidate its power. The country, once it stabilizes, will become a formidable force, yet the special bonuses the Communists received during the civil war are cancelled.;;;X
EVT_8200041_A;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;;;X
EVT_8200042_NAME;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;Chinese Civil War erupts;;;X
EVT_8200042_DESC;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;With the breakdown of talks, all-out war resumed. This stage is referred to in mainland China and Communist historiography as the 'War of Liberation'. On 20 July 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory with 113 brigades (1.6 million troops), this marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War.;;;X
EVT_8200042_A;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;To arms, comrades!;;;X
EVT_8200043_NAME;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;Weaknesses of Kuomintang;;;X
EVT_8200043_DESC;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;In spite of victory over Japan, our government became lax and cannot really fight corruption within our ranks. Also, we seem to be unable to win support of the masses as well as long-lasting support of numerous warlords still present in various provinces.;;;X
EVT_8200043_A;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;Corruption runs rampant;;;X
EVT_8200044_NAME;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;American support for Kuomintang;;;X
EVT_8200044_DESC;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;;;X
EVT_8200044_A;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;Provide considerable support;;;X
EVT_8200044_B;No support;No support;No support;No support;No support;No support;No support;No support;;;X
EVT_8200044_C;Little support;Little support;Little support;Little support;Little support;Little support;Little support;Little support;;;X
EVT_8200044_D;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;Propose full alliance;;;X
EVT_8200045_NAME;American limited support;American limited support;American limited support;American limited support;American limited support;American limited support;American limited support;American limited support;;;X
EVT_8200045_DESC;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;In spite of numerous declarations of support and friendship, the Congress blocked the motion to provide strong support for our forces. There are supply transports and military advisors coming our way but it's less that we could hope for. It seems that United States are little troubled by the thought of Communist-dominated China...;;;X
EVT_8200045_A;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;;;X
EVT_8200046_NAME;American considerable support;American considerable support;American considerable support;American considerable support;American considerable support;American considerable support;American considerable support;American considerable support;;;X
EVT_8200046_DESC;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;The United States strongly supported the Kuomintang forces. Over 50,000 Marines were sent to guard strategic sites, and 100,000 US troops were sent to Shandong. The US equipped and trained over 500,000 KMT troops, and transported KMT forces to occupy newly liberated zones, as well as to contain Communist controlled areas. American aid included substantial amounts of both new and surplus military supplies, additionally, loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars were made to the KMT. Within less than 2 years after the Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received 4.43 billion dollars from the US - most of which was military aid.;;;X
EVT_8200046_A;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;We'll put it to good use;;;X
EVT_8200047_NAME;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;American alliance proposal;;;X
EVT_8200047_DESC;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;American administration originally planned sending us huge amounts of stockpiles and sharing military know-how with us but there was no talk of direct military involvement of allmighty American war machine. The last days changed everything and the US President ordered secret talks about sending American boys once more on the other side of the ocean. It's needless to say that we are thrilled by this possibility. Few concerned voices raise their feelings of even bigger dependence on the US and possibility of enraging the big neighbor, Soviet Union. Will we consider standpoint of those afraid people at all?;;;X
EVT_8200047_A;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;Forge anticommunist alliance!;;;X
EVT_8200047_B;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;We'll do it with our own hands;;;X
EVT_8200050_NAME;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;Partisans in Anqing;;;X
EVT_8200050_DESC;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;In most cases, the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities. Communists had considerable support among rural population and these masses flocked under their banners in thousands.\n\nOnce again, valiant partisans recruited among local peasants have joined our cause.;;;X
EVT_8200050_A;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;;;X
EVT_8200050_B;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;;;X
EVT_8200051_NAME;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;Partisans in Fuling;;;X
EVT_8200052_NAME;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;Partisans in Ganzhou;;;X
EVT_8200053_NAME;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;Partisans in Yibin;;;X
EVT_8200054_NAME;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;Partisans in Hechi;;;X
EVT_8200055_NAME;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;Partisans in Yichung;;;X
EVT_8200056_NAME;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;Partisans in Guilin;;;X
EVT_8200057_NAME;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;Partisans in Shangrao;;;X
EVT_8200100_NAME;China united by force;China united by force;China united by force;China united by force;China united by force;China united by force;China united by force;China united by force;;;X
EVT_8200100_DESC;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;Communist rebels evaded our grasp for many years but eventually they are crushed. Kuomingtang will lead China to the new era, the prosperous one we hope.;;;X
EVT_8200100_A;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;;;X
EVT_8200101_NAME;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;The civil war seems lost;;;X
EVT_8200101_DESC;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. Thankfully, we still hold the island of Taiwan which we may use as a temporary capital and our bulwark against Mao's hordes. Maybe it is time to fall back there and hope that our adversaries won't follow.;;;X
EVT_8200101_A;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;Fall back to Taiwan;;;X
EVT_8200101_B;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;;;X
EVT_8200102_NAME;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;The Civil War seems lost;;;X
EVT_8200102_DESC;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;Our complacency and military ineptitude proved deadly as the more efficient Communist forces pushed us away from the most of China. We have nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape. There's little hope that Communists will show us much mercy but do we have an alternative idea?;;;X
EVT_8200102_A;Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);Surrender (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8200102_B;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;Hope for tides of war to turn;;;X
EVT_8200103_NAME;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;;;X
EVT_8200103_DESC;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;;;X
EVT_8200103_A;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;;;X
EVT_8200104_NAME;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;;;X
EVT_8200104_DESC;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;The Kuomintang forces are in full retreat and the remaining group of their leaders ask for swift surrender. Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Americans may be enraged but there's no more serious opposition to support within China, no one who may oppose our rule. There's one China, one authority over the whole territory and the civil war thankfully came to an end.;;;X
EVT_8200104_A;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;;;X
EVT_8200104_B;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;Finish off marauders;;;X
EVT_8200105_NAME;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;Establishment of the People's Republic;;;X
EVT_8200105_DESC;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;Upon end of hostilities, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately 2 million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan. There remained only isolated pockets of resistance, notably in Sichuan (ending soon after the fall of Chengdu) and in the far south. This means that our victory is not absolute and for years to come we will have to cope with lack of internation recognition of Communist government. There's though little that we can do to change it, at least for now.;;;X
EVT_8200105_A;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;Announce the victory!;;;X
EVT_8200105_B;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;Push for Taiwan;;;X
EVT_8200110_NAME;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;;;X
EVT_8200110_DESC;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;;;X
EVT_8200110_A;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;;;X
EVT_8200111_NAME;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;Warlords return to flock;;;X
EVT_8200111_DESC;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;At the end of the civil war, some parts of China are still under control of warlords. Now, with the power consolidated in our hands and great military force at our disposal, they are no match for our troops. After showing our clear superiority in recent wars, petty warlords find any resistance attempt to be pointless and humbly ask for our pardon.;;;X
EVT_8200111_A;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;Rejoice!;;;X
EVT_8200120_NAME;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;;;X
EVT_8200120_DESC;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Kuomintang fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;;;X
EVT_8200120_A;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;;;X
EVT_8200121_NAME;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;End of intervention in China;;;X
EVT_8200121_DESC;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;Our intervention in China, meant to support one of the sides in war, proved pointless. In spite of our military assistance, Communists fought difficult struggle for united China and conceded defeat. It is even harder now to find a reason for our continuing engagement in this part of the world.;;;X
EVT_8200121_A;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;Let's finish this pointless intervention;;;X
EVT_8200130_NAME;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;;;X
EVT_8200130_DESC;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;;;X
EVT_8200130_A;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;;;X
EVT_8200130_B;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;Keep the national guard!;;;X
EVT_8200131_NAME;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;Disband militias;;;X
EVT_8200131_DESC;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;The long period of turmoil and civil wars is over and partisans who for decades fought for their vision of China may finally sigh with relief. For all the auxiliary militia forces it is time to disband and return peasant to where they belong - to take care of their fields and homes.;;;X
EVT_8200131_A;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;Let them return to homes;;;X
EVT_8200131_B;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;Keep the revolutionary guard!;;;X
EVT_8200140_NAME;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;Chinese communists go their own way;;;X
EVT_8200140_DESC;"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";"During the period immediately following the Long March, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were headquartered in Yan'an, which is a prefecture-level city in the Shaanxi province. During this period Mao clearly established himself as a Marxist theoretician and produced the bulk of the works which would later be canonized into the ""thought of Mao Zedong"". The rudimentary philosophical base of Chinese Communist ideology is laid down in Mao's numerous dialectical treatises and was conveyed to newly recruited party members. This period truly established ideological independence from Moscow for Mao and the CCP.\n\nNow the Chinese, whom we long helped in their way of establishing communism in their vast country, express their will to be treated on par with us and no longer easily accept our dominance in ideological and political matters.";;;X
EVT_8200140_A;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;Let them find their own way;;;X
EVT_8200140_B;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;Maintain superiority at all costs;;;X
EVT_8200141_NAME;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;USSR eases grip over China;;;X
EVT_8200141_DESC;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;USSR enjoyed considerable influence, mainly in ideological matters, when Chinese communists were weak and harrased by Nationalists. After years, followers of Mao took increasingly more separate stance in the matters of politics which finally resulted in a hostile split.;;;X
EVT_8200141_A;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;Good;;;X
EVT_8200150_NAME;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;Resolution of Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_8200150_DESC;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;After 3 years pass, the war will be coming to its conclusion.;;;X
EVT_8200150_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8200151_NAME;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;;;X
EVT_8200151_DESC;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;;;X
EVT_8200151_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8200152_NAME;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;;;X
EVT_8200152_DESC;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;;;X
EVT_8200152_A;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;;;X
EVT_8200153_NAME;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;;;X
EVT_8200153_DESC;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;;;X
EVT_8200153_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8200154_NAME;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;;;X
EVT_8200154_DESC;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;;;X
EVT_8200154_A;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;;;X
EVT_8200155_NAME;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;Victory in the civil war is near;;;X
EVT_8200155_DESC;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we finally overcame our difficulties and we possess military, psychological and moral assets to make a final push in the war, push for victory.;;;X
EVT_8200155_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8200156_NAME;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;The civil war overextended us greatly;;;X
EVT_8200156_DESC;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;Chinese Civil War was a conflict fought between forces loyal to the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang (KMT) and forces of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war represented an ideological split (Left vs. Right) between the Communist CPC, and the KMT's brand of Nationalism and resulted in great number of casualties over many years when hostilities took place.\n\nNow, after recent development of the war, it seems that we our situation is dire as we are troubled by corruption and the will to fight, and what is important, hope for victory, are getting thinner than ever.;;;X
EVT_8200156_A;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;The end is near;;;X
EVT_8200160_NAME;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;;;X
EVT_8200160_DESC;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;;;X
EVT_8200160_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8200161_NAME;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;End of the Civil War;;;X
EVT_8200161_DESC;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;Military campaigns of the Chinese Civil War have just ended and the army adopts its peacetime stance to be prepared for possible future conflicts.;;;X
EVT_8200161_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8201XXX_NAME;Red China;Red China;Red China;Red China;Red China;Red China;Red China;Red China;;;X
EVT_8201XXX_DESC;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;Hardened by fight in the mountains, first with Kai-Shek's forces, now with Japanese invasion we slowly build up our military machine. Fueled by sacrifice of human lives we amass support that one day may let us topple corrupt regimes.\n\nThanks to this help we are able to field a sizeable army without a working industrial base. But if we decide to forego our continuous struggle, we will have to cope without this extra support.;;;X
EVT_8201XXX_A;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;Fight for one China;;;X
EVT_8201XXX_B;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;Retreat to the mountains;;;X
EVT_8201010_NAME;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;No longer partisans;;;X
EVT_8201010_DESC;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;Since the days of struggle in the mountains our fighting model changed we can no longer base our operations and production on support of the masses. Just like the other countries we will have to build up our industrial base to create a professional army.;;;X
EVT_8202001_NAME;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;The Marshall Plan;;;X
EVT_8202001_DESC;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall. The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Plan was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.\n\nThe reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it. During the four years that the plan was operational, US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance was given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.\n\nNote: In game terms, the help we will send will translate to shrinking our positive economy modifiers by 10 percent, yet it will strenghten our European allies much more and even give us opportunity to encroach on the Eastern European bloc.;;;X
EVT_8202001_A;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;Propose the Plan to Western and Eastern Allies;;;X
EVT_8202001_B;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;Propose the Plan to Western Allies only;;;X
EVT_8202001_C;It's too costly;It's too costly;It's too costly;It's too costly;It's too costly;It's too costly;It's too costly;It's too costly;;;X
EVT_8202002_NAME;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;Soviet reaction to The Marshall Plan;;;X
EVT_8202002_DESC;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;After Marshall's appointment in January 1947, administration officials met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to press for an economically self-sufficient Germany. The Soviets took a punitive approach, pressing for a delay rather than an acceleration in economic rehabilitation. After six weeks of negotiations, Molotov rejected all of the American and British proposals. Marshall was particularly discouraged after personally meeting with Stalin to explain that the United States could not possibly abandon its position on Germany, while Stalin expressed little interest in a solution to German economic problems.\n\nThe Soviet Union was invited to the participation in the Plan with the understanding that it would likely refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. While the Soviet ambassador in Washington saw the Marshall Plan as means to create an anti-Soviet bloc, Stalin felt that the Soviets should take the offer. Stalin directed that, in negotiations to be held in Paris regarding the aid, countries in the Eastern Bloc must not agree to accepting economic conditions. Stalin changed his outlook when he learned that credits would be extended only on willingness to accept economic cooperation. the most important condition was that every country to join the plan would need to have its economic situation independently assessed, scrutiny to which the Soviets could not agree. Bevin and Bidault also insisted that any aid be accompanied by the creation of a unified European economy, something incompatible with the strict Soviet command economy.\n\nNote: If we let our satellite states to become a part of the program, their industries will benefit but our influence over those states will diminish (they will cease to be our puppet states) and we will risk that the Eastern European bloc will crumble just a short time after it was built.;;;X
EVT_8202002_A;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;We will block these attempts;;;X
EVT_8202002_B;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;Let Czechs and Poles have their share;;;X
EVT_8202002_C;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;We are also Allies, after all;;;X
EVT_8202003_NAME;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;Costs of the Marshall Plan;;;X
EVT_8202003_DESC;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;The Marshall Plan money was in the form of grants that did not have to be repaid. In addition to European Recovery Program grants, the Export-Import Bank (an agency of the U.S. government) at the same time made long-term loans at low interest rates to finance major purchases in the U.S., all of which were repaid. In the case of Germany there also were 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50 percent to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.\n\nSome critics and Congressmen at the time believed that America was giving too much aid to Europe. America had already given Europe $9 billion in other forms of help in previous years. The Marshall Plan gave another $13 billion which is equivalent to about $100 billion in today’s economy. Critics did not think that it was necessary for Americans to be using so much money to help nations they had already assisted in many ways before.;;;X
EVT_8202003_A;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;;;X
EVT_8202003_B;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;It's a considerable expense;;;X
EVT_8202003_C;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;It's a vast expense;;;X
EVT_820202X_NAME;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;Marshall Plan;;;X
EVT_820202X_DESC;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale American program to aid Europe where the United States gave monetary support to help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II in order to combat the spread of Soviet communism. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again.\n\nThe ERP addressed each of the obstacles to postwar recovery. The plan looked to the future, and did not focus on the destruction caused by the war. Much more important were efforts to modernize European industrial and business practices using high-efficiency American models, reduce artificial trade barriers, and instill a sense of hope and self-reliance.;;;X
EVT_820202X_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8203000_NAME;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;;;X
EVT_8203000_DESC;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;;;X
EVT_8203000_A;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;;;X
EVT_8203000_B;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;;;X
EVT_8203001_NAME;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;;;X
EVT_8203001_DESC;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;Thanks to our military victories, we managed to secure the whole territory of former Austria. In 1943 the Allied powers agreed in the Declaration of Moscow that it would be regarded as the first victim of Nazi aggression, and treated as a liberated and independent country after the war. Shall we fulfill our declarations of that time?;;;X
EVT_8203001_A;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;;;X
EVT_8203001_B;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;;;X
EVT_8203002_NAME;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;Renner's cabinet;;;X
EVT_8203002_DESC;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;Soviet commander Fyodor Tolbukhin's troops crossed the former Austrian border at Klostermarienberg in Burgenland. In the beginning of the Vienna Offensive, Austrian politician Karl Renner, then living in southern Lower Austria, established contact with the Soviets. Joseph Stalin had already assembled a future puppet government of Austrian communists in exile, but Tolbukhin's telegram changed Stalin's mind in favor of Renner.\n\nThe Soviets, acting without asking their Western allies, instructed Renner to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists. The Western allies suspected the usual Soviet pattern of setting up puppet states and did not recognize Renner.;;;X
EVT_8203002_A;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;Ask Renner to recreate Republic;;;X
EVT_8203002_B;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;Strive for Communist Austria;;;X
EVT_8203003_NAME;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;Recognition of Renner's government;;;X
EVT_8203003_DESC;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;The Soviets, acting without consulting this matter, instructed Karl Renner, Austrian interwar chancellor, to form the provisional government of Austria. Seven days later Renner's cabinet took office, declared the independence of Austria from Nazi Germany and called for the creation of a democratic state along the lines of the First Republic.\n\nOne-third of State Chancellor Renner's cabinet, including crucial seats of the Secretary of State for the Interior and the Secretary of State for Education, was staffed by Austrian Communists.\n\nThe Allied Council of four military governors convened for its first meeting in Vienna. It refused to recognize Renner's claims for a national government but did not prevent him from extending influence into the Western zones. Renner appointed vocal anti-communist Karl Gruber to represent Austria as its Foreign Minister and tried to reduce Communist influence. Shall we accept the status quo and recognize Renner's cabinet, which gives a hope of democratization of the country, or will we escalate tensions and let Austria remain divided?;;;X
EVT_8203003_A;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;Renner guarantees democracy;;;X
EVT_8203003_B;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;We don't want Soviets, with our without Renner;;;X
EVT_8203004_NAME;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;Lack of recognition;;;X
EVT_8203004_DESC;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;Western Allies refused to recognize our first government because of Soviet influences there. We may feel estranged and due to lack of Allied support our politics will slide to the side of communist dictatorship;;;X
EVT_8203004_A;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;We are betrayed, comrades;;;X
EVT_8203005_NAME;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;Occupation of Austria;;;X
EVT_8203005_DESC;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;Now, when Soviets invited Renner to form communist government in Austria and this met irreconcilable difficulties between us and them, we will declare independence of our part of Austria.;;;X
EVT_8203005_A;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;Declare independence of Austria;;;X
EVT_8203005_B;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;Let's continue occupation;;;X
EVT_8203010_NAME;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;Austrian Control Agreement;;;X
EVT_8203010_DESC;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;On June 28, 1946, the Allies signed the Second Control Agreement that loosened their dominance over the Austrian government. Parliament of Austria was de facto relieved of Allied control. From now on its decision could be overturned only by unanimous vote by all four Allies. The Soviet vetoes against Austrian laws were routinely voided by the Western opposition.For the next nine years the country was gradually emancipated from foreign control, and evolved from a 'nation under tutelage' to full independence. The government of Austria possessed its own independent vision of the future, reacting to adverse circumstances and at times turning them to their own benefit. First allied talks on Austrian independence were held in January 1947, and deadlocked over the issue of 'German assets' in Soviet possession.\n\nMeanwhile, the occupation continued, and in late 1945 and early 1946 Allied occupation force in Austria peaked at around 150,000 Soviet, 55,000 British, 40,000 American and 15,000 French troops;;;X
EVT_8203010_A;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;We'll have to go through this;;;X
EVT_8203011_NAME;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;Soviet occupational policy;;;X
EVT_8203011_DESC;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars.\n\nCoincidentally with the Second Control Agreement, the Soviets changed their economic policy from outright plunder to running expropriated Austrian businesses for a profit. Austrian communists advised Stalin to nationalize the whole economy, but he deemed the proposal to be too radical. Between February and June 1946, the Soviets expropriated hundreds of businesses left in their zone. On June 27, 1946, they amalgamated these assets into the USIA, a conglomerate of over 400 enterprises. It possessed substantial, or even monopolistic, share in glass, steel, oil and transportation industries. The Soviets had no intention to reinvest their profits, and USIA assets gradually decayed and lost their competitive edge. The Austrian government scorned it for being 'an economy of exploitation in colonial style.';;;X
EVT_8203011_A;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;Extract profits through USIA;;;X
EVT_8203011_B;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;Run rampant plunder;;;X
EVT_8203011_C;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;Leave Austria alone;;;X
EVT_8203012_NAME;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;Administration for Soviet Property in Austria;;;X
EVT_8203012_DESC;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;The Administration for Soviet Property in Austria, or the USIA was formed in the Soviet zone of Allied-occupied Austria in June 1946 and operated until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955. USIA operated as a de-facto state corporation and controlled over four hundred expropriated Austrian factories, transportation and trading companies. USIA assets included formerly independent Austrian companies (ÖAF), factories once owned by German corporations (AEG) and former SS enterprises (DEST). At its peak in 1951 the conglomerate employed around 60 thousand people, or 10 percent of Austrian industrial labor. USIA was exempt from Austrian tariffs, disregarded Austrian taxation, and could easily trade with Eastern Europe despite the Iron Curtain and Western trade embargoes. The extraterritorial corporation attempted to be self-sufficient and was very weakly integrated with the rest of Austrian economy.;;;X
EVT_8203012_A;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;It's colonialism in Soviet style;;;X
EVT_8203013_NAME;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;Harsh terms of Soviet occupation;;;X
EVT_8203013_DESC;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;The Potsdam Agreement allowed confiscation of 'German external assets' in Austria, and the Soviets used the vagueness of this definition to the full. In less than a year they dismantled and shipped to the East industrial equipment valued at around 500 million U.S. dollars. Even after signing Second Control Agreement the situation didn't change much which led to devastation of Austrian economy.;;;X
EVT_8203013_A;Damn;Damn;Damn;Damn;Damn;Damn;Damn;Damn;;;X
EVT_8203014_NAME;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;Proposal for Austrian independence;;;X
EVT_8203014_DESC;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.;;;X
EVT_8203014_A;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;Let them build their state;;;X
EVT_8203014_B;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;We'll prolong our presence there;;;X
EVT_8203015_NAME;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;Soviets want to leave Austria;;;X
EVT_8203015_DESC;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;In 1955 for Soviets Austria was no longer a hostage of the German issue. Molotov invited Raab to Moscow for bilateral negotiations that, if successful, had to be followed by a Four Powers conference. By this time Paris Agreements were ratified by France and Germany, yet again the British and Americans suspected a trap of the same sort that Hitler had set for Schuschnigg in 1938. Anthony Eden and others wrote that the Moscow initiative was merely a cover-up for another incursion into German matters. The West erroneously thought that the Soviets valued Austria primarily as a military asset, when in reality it was a purely political issue.\n\nThese fears did not materialize, and Raab's visit to Moscow was a breakthrough. Moscow agreed that Austria would be free not later than 31 December.\n\nWestern powers were stunned;;;X
EVT_8203015_A;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;Rejoice;;;X
EVT_8203016_NAME;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;Austrian State Treaty;;;X
EVT_8203016_DESC;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;The Austrian State Treaty (German: Österreichischer Staatsvertrag) or Austrian Independence Treaty re-established Austria as a sovereign state. It was signed on May 15, 1955, in Vienna at the Schloss Belvedere among the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government. It officially came into force on July 27, 1955.\n\nAs well as general regulations and recognition of the Austrian state, the minority rights of the Slovene and Croat minorities are also expressly detailed. Anschluss (political union) with the new Germany, as had happened in 1938, was forbidden. Nazi and fascist organisations were prohibited.\n\nFurthermore, Austria announced that it would declare itself permanently neutral after the enactment of the treaty. The USSR had expressed its wish for such a declaration of neutrality as a guarantee that Austria would not join NATO after Soviet troops had been withdrawn. Austrian neutrality was not actually in the original text of the treaty, but it was added by the Austrian parliament.;;;X
EVT_8203016_A;We are free!;We are free!;We are free!;We are free!;We are free!;We are free!;We are free!;We are free!;;;X
EVT_8203030_NAME;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;;;X
EVT_8203030_DESC;The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';;;X
EVT_8203030_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8204000_NAME;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204000_DESC;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;;;X
EVT_8204000_A;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;;;X
EVT_8204000_B;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;;;X
EVT_8204001_NAME;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204001_DESC;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;After the war it turns out that we occupy the whole territory of former Germany, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam. There is no need for any Allied Powers commission to decide whether Germany should be released free or not. With our close supervision to make Germans perform denazification in their ranks, they can have their state back.;;;X
EVT_8204001_A;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;Grant them independence;;;X
EVT_8204001_B;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;Let's keep these lands;;;X
EVT_8204002_NAME;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;;;X
EVT_8204002_DESC;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Western Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;;;X
EVT_8204002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204003_NAME;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;Formation of zones of occupation;;;X
EVT_8204003_DESC;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;After the war the German lands, not taking into account lands assigned to other countries according to Treaty of Potsdam, are divided among Allied Powers. It becomes clear that it is going to take time until differences between war allies are reconciled and united Germany is formed. For now, the Soviet Allies will supervise administration in their own zone of occupation.;;;X
EVT_8204003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204004_NAME;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204004_DESC;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;;;X
EVT_8204004_A;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;;;X
EVT_8204005_NAME;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;Independence of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204005_DESC;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;Since whole area that due to Treaty of Potsdam is to become Germany is included in a single zone of occupation, the motion to create a united independent German state became really viable. From today on, we can begin our road to rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous country.;;;X
EVT_8204005_A;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;We Are Germany;;;X
EVT_8204010_NAME;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;;;X
EVT_8204010_DESC;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;The Morgenthau Plan, called after the then  United States Secretary of the Treasury, in the original proposal consisted of three main points that were to shape up the post-war Germany:\n\n- Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states\n- Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations\n- All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.\n\nHistorically, the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, although not in its most extreme version. It spawned however the ideas of making Germany a 'Pastoral State'. This concept's name was later changed to become 'level of industry', where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10 percent of its 1936 level, etc.;;;X
EVT_8204010_A;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;Ease the plan;;;X
EVT_8204010_B;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;Try to apply the 'pastoral state' idea;;;X
EVT_8204010_C;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;Be even more lenient;;;X
EVT_8204011_NAME;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;;;X
EVT_8204011_DESC;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;;;X
EVT_8204011_A;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;;;X
EVT_8204011_B;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;;;X
EVT_8204011_C;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;;;X
EVT_8204012_NAME;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;;;X
EVT_8204012_DESC;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;Having our share of German provinces under control we can take advantage of them, transporting raw supplies and even dismantling factories that made it throught the war. The scope of our activities in this regard depends on common rules set for all the Western Allies.;;;X
EVT_8204012_A;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;We got free rein!;;;X
EVT_8204012_B;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;We must abide by the rules;;;X
EVT_8204012_C;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;We shall help Germans rebuild the country;;;X
EVT_8204013_NAME;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;;;X
EVT_8204013_DESC;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;;;X
EVT_8204013_A;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;;;X
EVT_8204013_B;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;;;X
EVT_8204013_C;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;;;X
EVT_8204020_NAME;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;;;X
EVT_8204020_DESC;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;After the war, just like the Western Allies, Soviets tried to extract huge amounts of supplies and equipment from newly conquered provinces of Germany. According to Soviet Foreign Ministry data, Soviet troops organised in specialised 'trophy' battalions organised removals of 1.28m tons of materials and 3.6m tons of equipment. The Soviet occupation sought to extract the $10bn from its occupation zone in eastern Germany, in addition to the trophy removals.;;;X
EVT_8204020_A;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;Bleed them dry;;;X
EVT_8204020_B;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;Constrain ourselves;;;X
EVT_8204020_C;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;Foster development of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204021_NAME;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;Occupation policy;;;X
EVT_8204021_DESC;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;After the war the victorious powers wanted to extract from Germany remaining assets to at least partly help them finance the enourmous costs the war caused. Also, the goal was to weaken German nation to the extent where it wouldn't be able pose any serious threat to the international balance of power again. However, the details of occupation policies were to be decided by the Allied Powers in respect to their zones of occupation.;;;X
EVT_8204021_A;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;Occupation will be harsh;;;X
EVT_8204021_B;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;Occupation will be moderately harsh;;;X
EVT_8204021_C;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;Occupation will be mild;;;X
EVT_8204030_NAME;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;Formation of Allied Zone of Occupation;;;X
EVT_8204030_DESC;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;Since the Allied Zone of Occupation was formed, we are asked to commit our conquered German lands to the newly created entity.;;;X
EVT_8204030_A;Sure;Sure;Sure;Sure;Sure;Sure;Sure;Sure;;;X
EVT_8204031_NAME;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;;;X
EVT_8204031_DESC;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;;;X
EVT_8204031_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204032_NAME;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;Claiming the lost lands;;;X
EVT_8204032_DESC;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;In the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, the Allies of World War II had defined the Oder-Neisse Line as the line of demarcation between the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and Poland, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier in a later peace settlement. It was not until the Treaty of Zgorzelec of 1950 between East Germany and the People's Republic of Poland when this border was confirmed as final. Even then, West Germany, which saw itself as the only legal successor to the German Reich and did not recognize East Germany, insisted that final settlement on the Polish-German border could only be accepted by a future reunited Germany. Although West Germany, for all practical purposes, accepted the Oder-Neisse border in the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), its legal caveat that only a future peace treaty would formally settle the issue remained in effect.;;;X
EVT_8204032_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204035_NAME;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;;;X
EVT_8204035_DESC;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;The Saar Protectorate, named after the Saar River, was forcibly made a protectorate by the victorious allies as part of a policy of 'industrial disarmament' and re-settlement of peoples mandated on the new German governments. It was administered by the French Fourth Republic.\n\nThe region possesses a well-developed transportation infrastructure that was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution in Germany and which, like the Ruhr Area, fuelled the German war industries from during the early 19th century to the end of World War II. Like the nearby Ruhr valley, it was heavily bombed by the allies as part of the strategic bombing campaigns.\n\nOn 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.;;;X
EVT_8204035_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204036_NAME;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;Creation of Saar Protectorate;;;X
EVT_8204036_DESC;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;In July 1945, two months after World War II had ended in Europe, US forces left the Saar area and French troops established their occupational administration. On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar area from the allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate, which was no longer under the joint allied jurisdiction by the Allied Control Council for Germany.\n\nWhile France refrained from expelling the Saar population,  it still strictly refused to absorb war refugees who were denied return to their homes in the eastern annexed territories or post-war expellees from there, in the French Saar protectorate or the French zone. France aimed at winning over the Saar population for a future annexation.;;;X
EVT_8204036_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204037_NAME;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;Referendum for the future of Saarland;;;X
EVT_8204037_DESC;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;In the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954, France offered to establish an independent 'Saarland', under the auspices of the Western European Union (WEU). Historically, a referendum held on 23 October 1955 rejected this plan by 67.7 percent to 32.3 percent despite the public support of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the plan. The rejection of the plan by the Sarrois was interpreted as support for the Saar to join the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nOn October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.;;;X
EVT_8204037_A;Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);Reunification with Germany option wins (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8204037_B;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;Independence option wins;;;X
EVT_8204038_NAME;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;Reunification of Saarland;;;X
EVT_8204038_DESC;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;On October 27, 1956, the Saar Treaty established that Saarland should be allowed to join West Germany, as provided by its Grundgesetz constitution art. 23, and so Saarland did on January 1, 1957.\n\nThe treaty also stated that economic union with West Germany was to be completed by 1960, with the exact date of the replacement of the Saar and French franc by the Deutsche Mark being kept a secret called 'Day X' (Tag X). Although the Saar joined West Germany (as Saarland) on January 1, 1957, the franc remained legal tender in Saarland until July 6, 1959. Thus on that date the Kleine Wiedervereinigung (little reunification) was completed, after 14 years of separation.;;;X
EVT_8204038_A;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;Welcome, brothers;;;X
EVT_8204040_NAME;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;;;X
EVT_8204040_DESC;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;;;X
EVT_8204040_A;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;Introduce common currency;;;X
EVT_8204040_B;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;Keep status quo;;;X
EVT_8204041_NAME;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;;;X
EVT_8204041_DESC;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets refused to accept this proposal, hoping to continue the German recession in keeping with their policy of a weak Germany.;;;X
EVT_8204041_A;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;;;X
EVT_8204042_NAME;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;;;X
EVT_8204042_DESC;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. Anticipating the introduction of new currency the Soviet Union in May 1948 introduced its own new currency and permitted only the Soviet currency to be used in their sector of Berlin. Meanwhile Western Allies announced that the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.;;;X
EVT_8204042_A;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;Oppose plans for common currency;;;X
EVT_8204042_B;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;Allow the reform in East Germany too;;;X
EVT_8204043_NAME;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;German currency reform;;;X
EVT_8204043_DESC;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;Creation of an economically stable Germany required reform of the Reichsmark. In February 1948, the Americans and British had proposed to the ACC that a new German currency be created, replacing the over-circulated and de-valued Reichsmark. The Soviets surprisingly accept this proposal, making it the important milestone for reconstruction of East Germany;;;X
EVT_8204043_A;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;It's crucial for our reconstruction;;;X
EVT_8204044_NAME;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;Berlin Blockade;;;X
EVT_8204044_DESC;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;After the announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. At the time, West Berlin had thirty-five days' worth of food, and forty-five days' worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered due to the post-war scaling-back of their armies. It seems that Allies will not be able to support Berlin.;;;X
EVT_8204044_A;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;Organize blockade;;;X
EVT_8204044_B;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;Let supplies flow;;;X
EVT_8204050_NAME;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;;;X
EVT_8204050_DESC;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;The continued success humiliated the Soviets, and the 'Easter Parade' of 1949 was the last straw. On 15 April 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the US State Department stated the 'way appears clear' for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached, on Western terms.;;;X
EVT_8204050_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204051_NAME;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;Berlin is red;;;X
EVT_8204051_DESC;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;Our pressure turned out to be well-aimed. The Allies folded and realized they can no longer supported their awkward enclave of West Berlin. The German capital is ours once more!;;;X
EVT_8204051_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204060_NAME;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;Propose United Germany;;;X
EVT_8204060_DESC;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;Relations between the Western Allies and Soviet Union in postwar years were difficult and occupied Germany was one of the possible flashpoints of future war. However, given that both sides were ready to reach compromise, the goal of releasing united neutral Germany in a way similar to Austrian, would have been possible.;;;X
EVT_8204060_A;It is possible;It is possible;It is possible;It is possible;It is possible;It is possible;It is possible;It is possible;;;X
EVT_8204060_B;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;;;X
EVT_8204061_NAME;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;United Germany proposed;;;X
EVT_8204061_DESC;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;Western Allies have just proposed the scheme of creating single German state with democratically elected government. This state will not be allowed to join any military alliance and will stand as a buffer zone between our spheres of influence.;;;X
EVT_8204061_A;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;We prefer partitioned Germany;;;X
EVT_8204061_B;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;We agree to united and neutral Germany;;;X
EVT_8204070_NAME;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204070_DESC;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;;;X
EVT_8204070_A;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;;;X
EVT_8204100_NAME;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204100_DESC;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;;;X
EVT_8204100_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204101_NAME;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204101_DESC;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;In 1949, with the continuation and aggravation of the Cold War, the two German states that were originated in the Western Allied and the Soviet Zones, were formed, known internationally as West Germany and East Germany.;;;X
EVT_8204101_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204200_NAME;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;Wirtschaftswunder;;;X
EVT_8204200_DESC;The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';The term Wirtschaftswunder ('economic miracle') describes the rapid reconstruction of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II. Beginning with the replacement of the Reichsmark as legal tender, a lasting period of low inflation and rapid industrial growth was overseen by the German government which allowed Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, go down in history as the 'father of the German economic miracle.';;;X
EVT_8204200_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8204301_NAME;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;Divided Berlin;;;X
EVT_8204301_DESC;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;The Potsdam Agreement established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. Berlin, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone of occupation—newly established in most of Middle Germany—would divided similarly to the rest of Germany, with the Western Allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would end only as a result of a quadripartite agreement. The Western Allies were guaranteed three air corridors to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.\n\nAt first, this arrangement was officially only meant to be a temporary administrative structure, with all parties declaring that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had separate city administrations.;;;X
EVT_8204301_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204302_NAME;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;Reunification of Berlin;;;X
EVT_8204302_DESC;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;Just after the war the Soviet victors of the Battle of Berlin immediately occupied all of the demolished city. The Soviets used the period from May 1945 to July 1945 to dismantle industry, transport and other facilities in West Berlin, including removing railway tracks, as reparations for German war damage in the Soviet Union. This practice also continued in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone after 1945. The wartime destruction and postwar division was both politically and economically troubling for Berlin.\n\nIt comes as great joy that the city, once divided, is reunified once again which should help to regain its former status.;;;X
EVT_8204302_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204303_NAME;East Berlin;East Berlin;East Berlin;East Berlin;East Berlin;East Berlin;East Berlin;East Berlin;;;X
EVT_8204303_DESC;"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";"The Western Allies (the USA, Britain and France) never formally acknowledged the authority of the East German government to govern East Berlin; the official Allied protocol recognized only the authority of the Soviet Union in East Berlin in accordance with the occupation status of Berlin as a whole. The United States Command Berlin, for example, published detailed instructions for U.S. military and civilian personnel wishing to visit East Berlin. In fact, the three Western commandants regularly protested the presence of the East German National People's Army (NVA) in East Berlin, particularly on the occasion of military parades. Nevertheless, the three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as the capital of East Germany. Treaties instead used terms such as 'seat of government.'";;;X
EVT_8204303_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204304_NAME;Berlin;Berlin;Berlin;Berlin;Berlin;Berlin;Berlin;Berlin;;;X
EVT_8204304_DESC;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;Berlin's history has left the city with a highly eclectic array of architecture and buildings. The city's appearance was predominantly shaped by the key role it played in Germany's history in the 20th century. Berlin was devastated by bombing raids during World War II, and many of the buildings that had remained after the war were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s in both West and East Berlin.\n\nNow, when the reunification of Berlin is complete, the city may enter once more era of far-reaching urban programs and renewed prosperity.;;;X
EVT_8204304_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8204400_NAME;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;;;X
EVT_8204400_DESC;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;;;X
EVT_8204400_A;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;Send the note and see reactions;;;X
EVT_8204400_B;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;Deals with the West have no point;;;X
EVT_8204401_NAME;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;;;X
EVT_8204401_DESC;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;;;X
EVT_8204401_A;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;;;X
EVT_8204401_B;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;;;X
EVT_8204401_C;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;;;X
EVT_8204402_NAME;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;;;X
EVT_8204402_DESC;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;;;X
EVT_8204402_A;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;;;X
EVT_8204402_B;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;;;X
EVT_8204402_C;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;;;X
EVT_8204403_NAME;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;Stalin's Note;;;X
EVT_8204403_DESC;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;The Stalin Note, also known as the March Note, was a document delivered to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) from the Soviet Occupation in Germany on March 10, 1952. Soviet leader Stalin put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for 'the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly' and free activity of democratic parties and organizations.\n\nJames Warburg, member of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, testified before the committee on March 28, 1952 and observed that the Soviet proposal might be a bluff, but it seemed 'that our government is afraid to call the bluff for the fear that it may not be a bluff at all' and might lead to 'a free, neutral, and demilitarized Germany,' which might be 'subverted into Soviet orbit'. This led to an exchange of notes between the Western allies and the Soviet Union, which eventually ended after the Western allies insistence that a unified Germany should be free to join the EDC and be rearmed, a demand which Stalin rejected as only a few years had passed since Germany alone had caused unprecedented destruction and loss of life in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.;;;X
EVT_8204403_A;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;OK, if the united Germany joins NATO;;;X
EVT_8204403_B;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;It's bluff, after all?;;;X
EVT_8204403_C;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;Agree, no strings attached!;;;X
EVT_8204404_NAME;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;Mild reaction to Stalin's Note;;;X
EVT_8204404_DESC;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;Western Allies expressed some good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. Still, distrust is strong and Adenauer and his Western supporters will not agree to the deal unless the resulting country is able to link itself militarily with NATO. For us, that would mean that we voluntarily revoke control over central Europe to our rivals.;;;X
EVT_8204404_A;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;;;X
EVT_8204404_B;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;;;X
EVT_8204405_NAME;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;Enthusiastic reaction to Stalin's Note;;;X
EVT_8204405_DESC;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;Western Allies expressed a lot of good will regarding our offer of free, united and democratic Germany that we put under discussion lately. They agree to our deal, even if it means that Western influence in the region may be diminished. Shall we finalize our deal?;;;X
EVT_8204405_A;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;So be it;;;X
EVT_8204405_B;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;Never!;;;X
EVT_8204406_NAME;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204406_DESC;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain free to shape political future and alignment within military blocs.;;;X
EVT_8204406_A;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;;;X
EVT_8204407_NAME;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;Formation of Germany;;;X
EVT_8204407_DESC;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;The Allies have just decided to allow for united Germany that will remain in perpetual neutrality.;;;X
EVT_8204407_A;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;At last;;;X
EVT_8207000_NAME;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;;;X
EVT_8207000_DESC;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;After the Nationalist government, which used to be run by Chiang Kai-shek, ceased to exist, no one may dispute our right to represent the whole China in United Nations Security Council. Many Western states will need time to accept this fact but we will quickly establish ourselves in the narrow elite of world superpowers.;;;X
EVT_8207000_A;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;;;X
EVT_8207001_NAME;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;Withdrawal of recognition for Nationalist China;;;X
EVT_8207001_DESC;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;Even after Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan, in reality forfeiting chance to ever gain back the mainland provinces, he still possesses worldwide recognition as a sole lawful sovereign of all China. Among priviliges that come with this is an influential and prestigious position as one of permanent member of United Nations Security Council, wielding executive veto rights.\n\nIn recognition of de facto leadership of communists over China, with a view on improvement of our relations, we may initiate a motion to recognize Mao's government as the sole representative of China and transfer to them all the accompanying prerogatives that come with this.;;;X
EVT_8207001_A;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;;;X
EVT_8207001_B;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;;;X
EVT_8207002_NAME;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;Invitation to United Nations Security Council;;;X
EVT_8207002_DESC;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;After we pushed Chiang Kai-shek followers out of the mainland and cornered them on Taiwan we supposed that the capitalist world will cling onto idea of keeping side of Nationalist as the 'lawful' sovereign of these lands. We were pleasantly surprised to see United States and other leading Western powers to come to terms with status quo and recognize our leadership over China. With their move, we are also invited to take power and prestige that comes with the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council.;;;X
EVT_8207002_A;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;Among the great powers;;;X
EVT_8207003_NAME;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;Soviet boycott of United Nations Security Council;;;X
EVT_8207003_DESC;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;It was Jacob Malik, Soviet representative in United Nations, who walked out to show his displeasure over the United Nations' refusal to unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation. The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.\n\nMalik returned on 13 January 1950, however, to vote on the Soviet resolution to expel Nationalist China. Six countries voted against the resolution, and three - the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and India - voted in favor of it. Malik immediately left the meeting, declaring that the United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.;;;X
EVT_8207003_A;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;Boycott is a good means of pressure;;;X
EVT_8207003_B;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;This will lead to nothing good;;;X
EVT_8207004_NAME;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;Reaction to the Soviet boycott of UN Security Council;;;X
EVT_8207004_DESC;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;After United States refused to recognize Mao Zedong's government as the legal representative of China, this decision was met by criticism of Jacob Malik, the Soviet representative to the United Nations. He expressed that United States was 'encouraging lawlessness' by refusing to recognize the 'illegal presence' of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that 'even the most convinced reactionaries' had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.\n\nIt seems that the boycott didn't cause too much of a stir and we may carry on with our diplomatic strategy without any problems. Yet, if we really wish, we may recognize the de facto leader of China as legal successor of KMT regime, winning us some friends in communist world.;;;X
EVT_8207004_A;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;We won't betray Chiang;;;X
EVT_8207004_B;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;Recognize Mao as the sole leader of China;;;X
EVT_8207005_NAME;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;End of UN Security Council boycott;;;X
EVT_8207005_DESC;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;In late June 1950, it became apparent that the Soviet action had backfired when the issue of North Korea's invasion of South Korea was brought before the Security Council. By June 27, the Security Council voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Soviets could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since the United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France each had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present. In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway.;;;X
EVT_8207005_A;End the boycott;End the boycott;End the boycott;End the boycott;End the boycott;End the boycott;End the boycott;End the boycott;;;X
EVT_8207005_B;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;Continue the boycott;;;X
EVT_8209000_NAME;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;;;X
EVT_8209000_DESC;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.;;;X
EVT_8209000_A;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;;;X
EVT_8209000_B;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;;;X
EVT_8209001_NAME;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;;;X
EVT_8209001_DESC;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. Soon, a constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea.;;;X
EVT_8209001_A;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;;;X
EVT_8209001_B;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;;;X
EVT_8209002_NAME;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;Independent Democratic People's Republic of Korea;;;X
EVT_8209002_DESC;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-Sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.\n\nKim established a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft. Later, North Korean pilot candidates were sent to the Soviet Union and China to train in MiG-15 jet aircraft at secret bases.\n\nAlthough original plans called for all-Korean elections sponsored by the United Nations in 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.;;;X
EVT_8209002_A;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;;;X
EVT_8209002_B;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;;;X
EVT_8209003_NAME;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;Independent Republic of Korea;;;X
EVT_8209003_DESC;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;After Japan's surrender to the Allied Powers, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and U.S. trusteeship over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945 and established a military government shortly thereafter. A year later, an interim legislature and interim government were established, headed by Kim Kyu-shik and Syngman Rhee respectively. However, these interim bodies lacked any independent authority or de jure sovereignty, which was still held by the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea based in China, but U.S. leaders chose to ignore its legitimacy, partly due to the belief that it was communist-aligned.\n\nIn December 1945, a conference convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A 5-year trusteeship was discussed, and a US-Soviet joint commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly.\n\nThe resolution from the UN General Assembly called for a UN-supervised general election in Korea, but with the North rejecting this proposition, a general election for a Constitutional Assembly was held in the South only, in May 1948. A constitution was adopted, setting forth a presidential form of government and specifying a four-year term for the presidency. According to the provisions of the Constitution, an indirect presidential election was held in July. Syngman Rhee, as head of the new assembly, assumed the presidency and proclaimed the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on August 15, 1948.;;;X
EVT_8209003_A;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;Set up a the new state;;;X
EVT_8209003_B;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;We will remain there as occupiers;;;X
EVT_8211003_NAME;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;Research of Wernher von Braun;;;X
EVT_8211003_DESC;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;At war’s end, American, British, and Soviet scientific intelligence teams competed to capture Germany's rocket engineers. The United States benefited the most with Operation Paperclip, recruiting von Braun and most of his engineering team, who later helped develop the American missile and space exploration programs;;;X
EVT_8211003_A;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;;;X
EVT_8211004_NAME;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;Research of Sergei Korolyov;;;X
EVT_8211004_DESC;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;After almost a year in the area around Peenemünde, Soviet officials moved most of the captured German rocket specialists to Gorodomlya Island on Lake Seliger, about 240 kilometres northwest of Moscow. They were not allowed to participate in Soviet missile design, but were used as problem-solving consultants to the Soviet engineers.;;;X
EVT_8211004_A;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;Ok;;;X
EVT_8211008_NAME;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;;;X
EVT_8211008_DESC;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;;;X
EVT_8211008_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8211009_NAME;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;Launch of Sputnik;;;X
EVT_8211009_DESC;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;The Sputnik program is the commonly known name of a group of various robotic spacecraft missions launched by the Soviet Union. The first of these, Sputnik 1, launched the first human-made object to orbit the Earth. That launch took place on October 4, 1957 as part of the International Geophysical Year and demonstrated the viability of using artificial satellites to explore the upper atmosphere;;;X
EVT_8211009_A;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;;;X
EVT_8211010_NAME;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;;;X
EVT_8211010_DESC;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;;;X
EVT_8211010_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8211011_NAME;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;Launch of Explorer;;;X
EVT_8211011_DESC;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;Explorer 1 was the first Earth satellite of the United States, launched as part of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. Explorer 1 was launched on January 31, 1958 and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen radiation belt. It remained in orbit until 1970, and has been followed by more than 90 scientific spacecraft in the Explorer series;;;X
EVT_8211011_A;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;;;X
EVT_8211015_NAME;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;;;X
EVT_8211015_DESC;On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);;;X
EVT_8211015_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8211016_NAME;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;Gagarin in Space;;;X
EVT_8211016_DESC;On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);On 12 April 1961, aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1), Gagarin became both the first human to travel into space, and the first to orbit the earth. His call sign was Kedr (Siberian Pine);;;X
EVT_8211016_A;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;;;X
EVT_8211017_NAME;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;;;X
EVT_8211017_DESC;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;;;X
EVT_8211017_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8211018_NAME;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;Shepard in Space;;;X
EVT_8211018_DESC;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;On 5 May 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, when he was launched on the Mercury-Redstone 3 suborbital mission, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7. Though he did not achieve orbit, he was the first person to exercise manual control over his spacecraft's attitude and retro-rocket firing;;;X
EVT_8211018_A;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;;;X
EVT_8211022_NAME;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;;;X
EVT_8211022_DESC;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;;;X
EVT_8211022_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8211023_NAME;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;L3 Moon Expedition;;;X
EVT_8211023_DESC;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;A variant of the Soyuz craft, the LOK command ship, carried two men, and was consisted of three modules like the regular Soyuz 7K-OK, but was heavier by a few tons. The 7K-OK was half the mass of the three-man Apollo orbital craft (command ship). In the Soviet expedition one cosmonaut alone landed on Moon. On the Moon, the cosmonaut undertook moonwalks on foot and by Lunokhods, collecting rocks and hoisting the Soviet flag;;;X
EVT_8211023_A;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;;;X
EVT_8211024_NAME;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;;;X
EVT_8211024_DESC;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;;;X
EVT_8211024_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8211025_NAME;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;Apollo 11;;;X
EVT_8211025_DESC;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;The lunar trip took just over three days. Armstrong took over manual-flight-control at about 180 metres, and guided the Lunar Module to a landing on the Moon's Sea of Tranquility at 4:17 p.m. EDT, 20 July 1969. At 10:56:15 p.m. EDT, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon;;;X
EVT_8211025_A;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;Damn!;;;X
EVT_8212164_NAME;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;Dutch Indonesia;;;X
EVT_8212164_DESC;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;Political freedoms in Indonesia under the Dutch were limited at best. While Dutch aims to 'civilize' and 'modernize' the peoples of the Indies sometimes led to tolerance for native publications and organizations, the Dutch also strictly limited the content of these activities. Educational initatives provided opportunities for local inteligentsia but not enough to appease rising counsciousness of Indonesian nationalists.\n\nLike many leaders before him, the Dutch government arrested Sukarno in 1929 and placed a virtual ban on independence movements. Indeed, the Dutch colonial government repressed many nationalist organisations and jailed a variety of political leaders. Although the Dutch were unable to completely stifle local voices for change, they did successfully thwart widespread agitation. After the Second World War the Dutch further managed to contain the most radical movements yet the unrest continued under the surface. Therefore it became more advantageous to create a self-ruling Indonesia, still remaining under close Dutch supervision.;;;X
EVT_8212164_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8215000_NAME;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;Dissolution of Western Allies;;;X
EVT_8215000_DESC;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, even in those years, there were more or less formal agreements that allowed some forms of military involvement of United States in Europe and would allow for intervention if events in Europe escalated to the point of war.;;;X
EVT_8215000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8215001_NAME;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;Dissolution of Eastern Allies;;;X
EVT_8215001_DESC;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;The Allies of World War II were the countries that opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War. The Allies became involved in World War II either because they had already been invaded, were directly threatened with invasion by the Axis or because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world.\n\nSoon after the huge undertaking of the war, the direct necessity of maintaining close military alliance waned and it was not until the reemergence of global clash of superpowers knows as Cold War that the new system of reciprocal guarantees and military cooperation is formed. Still, the Soviet Union were under little limits as far as their military involvement in Eastern Bloc countries went. Basing on individual agreements with the countries, Soviets kept large armies stationed across the Eastern Europe and the armies of communist European countries were subordinate to the chief staff of the Red Army.;;;X
EVT_8215001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8215002_NAME;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;;;X
EVT_8215002_DESC;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;Though the American nation lost more than 400,000 soldiers in the Second World War, the mainland prospered untouched by the devastation of war that inflicted a heavy toll on Europe and Asia. Participation in postwar foreign affairs marked the end of predominant American isolationism. The awesome threat of nuclear weapons inspired both optimism and fear.\n\nFollowing World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two dominant superpowers. The U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote approved U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), which marked a turn away from the traditional isolationism of the U.S. and toward increased international involvement. The primary American goal of 1945–48 was to rescue Europe from the devastation of World War II and to contain the expansion of Communism, represented by the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 provided military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey to counteract the threat of Communist expansion in the Balkans. In 1948, the United States replaced piecemeal financial aid programs with a comprehensive Marshall Plan, which pumped money into the economy of Western Europe, and removed trade barriers, while modernizing the managerial practices of businesses and governments. In 1949, the United States, rejecting the long-standing policy of no military alliances in peacetime, formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.;;;X
EVT_8215002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8215003_NAME;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;Western Allies;;;X
EVT_8215003_DESC;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.;;;X
EVT_8215003_A;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;;;X
EVT_8215004_NAME;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;Eastern Allies;;;X
EVT_8215004_DESC;"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";"During the early part of Second World War USSR continued its policy of non-intervention and even limited support of German actions in Europe as evidenced by infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. However, all the German-Soviet treaties were brought to an end by the German surprise attack on the USSR on 22 June 1941. The Soviet Union so entered in alliance with the United Kingdom. Following the USSR, a number of other communist, pro-Soviet or Soviet-controlled forces fought against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Soon, a situational alliance of ideological enemies bound close by struggle against Nazi Germany formed, and the great coalition of the Allies, Western and Eastern ones, fought hand-in-hand until the end of the war.\n\nAt the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that the war was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been; in spite of the Soviet annexation of Polish territory. But when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on 22 June 1941, the Comintern changed its position to one of active support for the Allies. On May 15, 1943, a declaration of the Executive Committee was sent out to all sections of the International, calling for the dissolution of Comintern. Usually, it is asserted that the dissolution came about as Stalin wished to calm his World War II allies (particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill) and keep them from suspecting the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of trying to foment revolution in other countries.";;;X
EVT_8215004_A;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;War unites ideologies;;;X
EVT_8215010_NAME;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;;;X
EVT_8215010_DESC;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;;;X
EVT_8215010_A;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;;;X
EVT_8215010_B;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;;;X
EVT_8215011_NAME;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;Maintaining security in Europe;;;X
EVT_8215011_DESC;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.;;;X
EVT_8215011_A;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;Protect our sphere of influence!;;;X
EVT_8215011_B;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;;;X
EVT_8215012_NAME;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;;;X
EVT_8215012_DESC;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;;;X
EVT_8215012_A;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;Together we stand against communism!;;;X
EVT_8215012_B;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;;;X
EVT_8215013_NAME;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;New war in Europe;;;X
EVT_8215013_DESC;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;After hardships of the Second World War many countries were unwilling to wage any further conflicts and there was a fear that world powers, especially United States, may slip back to comfortable isolationism. Yet this possibility did not materialize and both United States and Soviet Union were active in maintaining direct influence in the future of post-war Europe. That meant that even if there was no formal alliance uniting European blocs of nations in first post-war years, any breach of security and surprise attack would most probably mean active participation of world superpowers.\n\nNow with the outbreak of fearsome new conflict, the global clash of United States and Soviet Union, the wartime allies will once again unite themselves to decide superiority of one side.;;;X
EVT_8215013_A;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;Together we stand against capitalism!;;;X
EVT_8215013_B;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;Proclaim neutrality;;;X
EVT_8215020_NAME;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;Foundation of NATO;;;X
EVT_8215020_DESC;"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";;;X
EVT_8215020_A;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;;;X
EVT_8215020_B;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;;;X
EVT_8215020_C;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;Leave the Allies altogether;;;X
EVT_8215021_NAME;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;;;X
EVT_8215021_DESC;"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";;;X
EVT_8215021_A;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;;;X
EVT_8215021_B;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;;;X
EVT_8215022_NAME;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;Invitation to NATO;;;X
EVT_8215022_DESC;"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";"The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.\n\nThe members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their ""vessels, forces or aircraft"" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was created, and Baron Hastings Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.";;;X
EVT_8215022_A;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;;;X
EVT_8215022_B;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;Remain outside;;;X
EVT_8215023_NAME;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;;;X
EVT_8215023_DESC;"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";;;X
EVT_8215023_A;Invite them!;Invite them!;Invite them!;Invite them!;Invite them!;Invite them!;Invite them!;Invite them!;;;X
EVT_8215023_B;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;Let's not tease Soviets;;;X
EVT_8215024_NAME;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;West Germany and NATO;;;X
EVT_8215024_DESC;"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";"The Federal Republic of Germany, founded on 23 May 1949, was declared ""fully sovereign"" on 5 May 1955. The former occupying Western troops remained on the ground, now as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which West Germany joined on 9 May 1955, promising to rearm itself soon.\n\nThe outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 led to U.S. calls to rearm West Germany to help defend Western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat. Germany's partners in the Coal and Steel Community proposed to establish a European Defence Community (EDC), with an integrated army, navy and air force, composed of the armed forces of its member states. The West German military would be subject to complete EDC control, but the other EDC member states (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) would cooperate in the EDC while maintaining independent control of their own armed forces. Though the EDC treaty was signed (May 1952), it never entered into force. France's Gaullists rejected it on the grounds that it threatened national sovereignty, and when the French National Assembly refused to ratify it (August 1954), the treaty died.\n\n In response, at the London and Paris Conferences, the Brussels Treaty was modified to include West Germany, and to form the Western European Union (WEU). West Germany was to be permitted to rearm (an idea many Germans rejected), and have full sovereign control of its military, called the Bundeswehr. The WEU, however, would regulate the size of the armed forces permitted to each of its member states. Also, the German constitution prohibited any military action, except in case of an external attack against Germany or its allies (Bündnisfall). Also, Germans could reject military service on grounds of conscience, and serve for civil purposes instead.\n\nThe three Western Allies retained occupation powers in Berlin and certain responsibilities for Germany as a whole. Under the new arrangements, the Allies stationed troops within West Germany for NATO defense, pursuant to stationing and status-of-forces agreements.";;;X
EVT_8215024_A;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;;;X
EVT_8215024_B;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;;;X
EVT_8215030_NAME;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;Foundation of Warsaw Pact;;;X
EVT_8215030_DESC;"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";;;X
EVT_8215030_A;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;Create it;;;X
EVT_8215030_B;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;Don't push the initiative;;;X
EVT_8215031_NAME;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;Invitation to Warsaw Pact;;;X
EVT_8215031_DESC;"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";"The Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, more commonly referred to as the Warsaw Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist states of Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Eastern Europe.\n\nOn 14 May 1955, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact in response to the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO in October 1954 – only nine years after the defeat of Nazi Germanythat ended only with the Soviet and Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45 during World War II in Europe. The reality, however, was that a ""Warsaw""-type pact had been in existence since 1945, when Soviet forces were initially in occupation of Eastern Europe, and maintained there after the war. The Warsaw Pact merely formalized the arrangement.\n\nThe eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who would be attacked; relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence.";;;X
EVT_8215031_A;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;Join!;;;X
EVT_8215031_B;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;Stay away;;;X
EVT_8216010_NAME;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;;;X
EVT_8216010_DESC;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;;;X
EVT_8216010_A;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;It will be beneficial;;;X
EVT_8216010_B;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;No, thanks;;;X
EVT_8216011_NAME;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;Yugoslav-Albanian Treaty of Friendship;;;X
EVT_8216011_DESC;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;Soon after the end of Second World War, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. After Germany's withdrawal from Kosovo in late 1944, Yugoslavia's communist partisans took possession of the province and committed retaliatory massacres against Albanians. In January 1945, the two governments signed a treaty reincorporating Kosovo into Yugoslavia as an autonomous province. Shortly thereafter, Yugoslavia became the first country to recognize Albania's provisional government.\n\nInitially, cooperation between two countries was very beneficial for Albania, letting the small country rebuild after difficult years of Italian occupation, thanks to Yugoslav foreign investments and favorable terms of trade.;;;X
EVT_8216011_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8216012_NAME;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;Anti-Yugoslav tensions;;;X
EVT_8216012_DESC;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;At some point, relations with Yugoslavia had begun to change for worse. The first issue was that the Albanian lek became revalued in terms of the Yugoslav dinar as a customs union was formed and Albania's economic plan was decided more by Yugoslavia. Hoxha began to accuse Yugoslavia of colonial economic policy towards Albania.\n\nBy June 1947, the Central Committee of Yugoslavia began publicly condemning Hoxha, accusing him of talking an individualistic and anti-Marxist line. When Albania responded by making agreements with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia said that Albania could not enter into any agreements with other countries without Yugoslav approval. Xoxe tried to stop Hoxha from improving relations with Bulgaria, reasoning that Albania would be more stable with one trading partner rather than with many.\n\nAt the Eighth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party which lasted from 26 February – 8 March 1948, Xoxe was implicated in a plot to isolate Hoxha and consolidate his own power. He accused Hoxha of being responsible for the decline in relations with Yugoslavia, and stated that a Soviet military mission should be expelled in favor of a Yugoslav counterpart. Hoxha managed to remain firm and his support had not declined. When Yugoslavia publicly broke with the Soviet Union, Hoxha's support base grew stronger. On 1 July 1948, Tirana called on all Yugoslav advisors to leave the country and unilaterally declared all treaties and agreements between the two countries null and void. Xoxe was expelled from the party and on 13 June 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.;;;X
EVT_8216012_A;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;We stand by Stalin!;;;X
EVT_8216012_B;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;We will back Tito;;;X
EVT_8216013_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;;;X
EVT_8216013_DESC;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. First,  Albanian communists had given up on their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. So close was the Yugoslav-Albanian relationship that Serbo-Croatian became a required subject in Albanian high schools.\n\nYugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Yugoslav advisers poured into Albania's government offices and its army headquarters. Tirana was desperate for outside aid, and about 20,000 tons of Yugoslav grain helped stave off famine. Albania also received US$26.3 million from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration immediately after the war but had to rely on Yugoslavia for investment and development aid. Joint Albanian–Yugoslav companies were created for mining, railroad construction, the production of petroleum and electricity, and international trade. The Yugoslavs also bolstered the Albanian economy by paying three times the international price for Albanian copper and other materials.\n\nClose cooperation provided foundation for even further political projects, namely inclusion of Albania into Greater Yugoslavia.;;;X
EVT_8216013_A;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;We invite people of Albania;;;X
EVT_8216013_B;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;;;X
EVT_8216014_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;;;X
EVT_8216014_DESC;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nAlbania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference, may join Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs. Will we allow such a move in our sphere of influence?;;;X
EVT_8216014_A;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;Let Albania join Yugoslavia;;;X
EVT_8216014_B;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;Force them to maintain status quo;;;X
EVT_8216015_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;;;X
EVT_8216015_DESC;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania was effectively a Yugoslav satellite. In July 1946, Yugoslavia and Albania signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation that was quickly followed by a series of technical and economic agreements laying the groundwork for integrating the Albanian and Yugoslav economies. The pacts provided for coordinating the economic plans of both states, standardizing their monetary systems, and creating a common pricing system and a customs union. Yugoslavia signed a similar friendship treaty with Bulgaria, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito and Bulgaria's Georgi Dimitrov talked of plans to establish a Balkan federation to include Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. Had Tito-Stalin split not materialized such a move would be highly probable, having sufficient backing among Soviet circles.\n\nCooperation between Yugoslavia and USSR is flawless and Soviet leadership sees it beneficial that Albania, in spite of cultural and linguistic difference joins Yugoslavia to become a part of even stronger state of Southern Slavs.;;;X
EVT_8216015_A;We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8216015_B;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;;;X
EVT_8216016_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Albania;;;X
EVT_8216016_DESC;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Albania, under Soviet acceptance, Albania becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;;;X
EVT_8216016_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8216020_NAME;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;;;X
EVT_8216020_DESC;"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";;;X
EVT_8216020_A;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;;;X
EVT_8216020_B;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;;;X
EVT_8216021_NAME;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;Bled Agreement;;;X
EVT_8216021_DESC;"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";"The Bled agreement (also referred to as the ""Tito—Dimitrov treaty"") was an agreement signed on the 1 August 1947 in Bled, SR Slovenia, FPR Yugoslavia. It was signed by Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgarian leader, and Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslav leader, which paved the way for future unification between the states in a new Balkan Federative Republic. It also foresaw the unification of Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia and the return of Western Outlands to Bulgaria. The agreement abolished visas and allowed for a customs union. It was also the first time that Bulgaria recognised Ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language. These agreements mark the mutual aspirations and efforts to develop new relations between the two countries.\n\nThe Bled was accepted with the Treaty on Friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed and published in Evksinograd. The treaty contains: several of the Agreement on economic cooperation, on customs facilitation, agreement for preparation of a customs union, the facilitation of border crossings, border crossing on the border of population and of the citizenship between the two countries. The Yugoslav Government negotiated in the conference of Bled that Bulgaria would waive $25 million in war damages owed by Yugoslavia.";;;X
EVT_8216021_A;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;Let's cement our friendship;;;X
EVT_8216021_B;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;We do not trust each other;;;X
EVT_8216022_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;;;X
EVT_8216022_DESC;"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";;;X
EVT_8216022_A;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;We invite people of Bulgaria;;;X
EVT_8216022_B;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;Let's not bother;;;X
EVT_8216023_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;;;X
EVT_8216023_DESC;"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nBy January 1948, Tito's and Dimitrov's plans had become an obstacle to Stalin's aspirations for total control over the new Eastern Bloc. Stalin invited Tito and Dimitrov to Moscow regarding the recent approachment between the two countries. Dimitrov accepted the invitation, but Tito refused, and sent Edvard Kardelj, his close associate, instead. The resulting fall-out between Stalin and Tito in 1948 gave the Bulgarian Government an eagerly-awaited opportunity of denouncing Yugoslav policy in Macedonia as expansionistic and of revising their policy on the Macedonian question. The ideas of a Balkan Federation and a United Macedonia were abandoned, the Macedonian teachers were expelled and teaching of Macedonian throughout the province was discontinued.";;;X
EVT_8216023_A;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;Rule out unification;;;X
EVT_8216023_B;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;Let Bulgaria join Yugoslavia;;;X
EVT_8216024_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;;;X
EVT_8216024_DESC;"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";"After the end of the war, Dimitrov started negotiating with Josip Broz Tito on the creation of a Federation of the Southern Slavs. The idea was based on the idea that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were the only two homelands of the Southern Slavs. The idea eventually resulted in the 1947 Bled accord, signed by Dimitrov and Tito, which called for abandoning frontier travel barriers, arranging for a future customs union, and Yugoslavia's unilateral forgiveness of Bulgarian war reparations. The preliminary plan for the federation included the incorporation of the Blagoevgrad Region (""Pirin Macedonia"") into the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the return of the Western Outlands from Serbia to Bulgaria.\n\nHowever, historically differences soon emerged between Tito and Dimitrov with regard to both the future joint country and the Macedonian question. Whereas Dimitrov envisaged a state where Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would be placed on an equal footing and Macedonia would be more or less attached to Bulgaria, Tito saw Bulgaria as a seventh republic in an enlarged Yugoslavia tightly ruled from Belgrade. Their differences also extended to the national character of the Macedonians - whereas Dimitrov considered them to be an offshoot of the Bulgarians, Tito regarded them as an independent nation which had nothing to do whatsoever with the Bulgarians.";;;X
EVT_8216024_A;We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);We will welcome this proposal (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8216024_B;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;Not really;;;X
EVT_8216025_NAME;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Bulgaria;;;X
EVT_8216025_DESC;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;As directed by common decision of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, under Soviet acceptance, Bulgaria becomes a part of Yugoslav federation.;;;X
EVT_8216025_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8217000_NAME;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;Cape Canaveral;;;X
EVT_8217000_DESC;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) is an installation of the United States Air Force Space Command's 45th Space Wing,, located on Cape Canaveral in the state of Florida. The CCAFS area had been used by the United States government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in the continental United States for this purpose as it allowed for launches out over the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States, allowing rockets to get a boost from the Earth's rotation.\n\nHistorically, after initial conventional development, the Air Force Missile Test Center was established in 1951. Early American sub-orbital rocket flights were achieved at Cape Canaveral in 1956. These flights were shortly after some sub-orbital flights at White Sands, such as Viking 11 on May 24, 1954. Following the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik 1, the US attempted its first launch of an artificial satellite from Cape Canaveral on December 6, 1957.\n\nNASA was founded in 1958, and Air Force crews launched missiles for NASA from the Cape, known then as Cape Canaveral Missile Annex. The row of Titan and Atlas launch pads along the coast came to be known as Missile Row in the 1960s. NASA's early manned spaceflights, Mercury and Gemini, were prepared for launch from Cape launch pads by U.S. Air Force crews.\n\nIn 1963, the installation was renamed Cape Kennedy Air Force Station after the geographic feature's name was changed from Cape Canaveral. In 1973, the name was reverted.;;;X
EVT_8217000_A;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;;;X
EVT_8217000_B;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;;;X
EVT_8217001_NAME;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;Baikonur Cosmodrome;;;X
EVT_8217001_DESC;"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";"The Baikonur Cosmodrome, also called Tyuratam, was the world's first operational space launch facility. It was located in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, built by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s as the base of operations for its space program.\n\nThe Soviet government issued the decree about Scientific-Research Test Range No. 5 on 12 February 1955, originally a test center for the world's first ICBM, the R-7 Semyorka. NIIP-5 was soon expanded to include launch facilities for space flights. The expense of constructing the launch facilities and the several hundred kilometres of new road and train lines made the Cosmodrome one of the most costly infrastructure projects the Soviets undertook. A supporting town was built around the facility to provide housing, schools and support infrastructure for workers.\n\nMany historic flights lifted off from Baikonur: the first operational ICBM; the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, on 4 October 1957; the first spacecraft to travel close to the Moon, Luna 1, on 2 January 1959; the first manned orbital flight by Yuri Gagarin on 12 April 1961; and the flight of the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963. 14 cosmonauts of 13 other nations, such as Czechoslovakia, East Germany, India and France, started their historic journeys from here as well under the Interkosmos program. In 1960, a prototype R-16 ICBM exploded before launch, killing over 100 people.";;;X
EVT_8217001_A;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;Found this new space program center;;;X
EVT_8217001_B;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;Keep rocket test sites where they are;;;X
EVT_8218000_NAME;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;Invite Syria to United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218000_DESC;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;;;X
EVT_8218000_A;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;;;X
EVT_8218000_B;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218001_NAME;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218001_DESC;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;Beginning in 1957, Syria was close to a communist takeover of political power;;;X
EVT_8218001_A;We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8218001_B;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218002_NAME;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;Syria joins UAR;;;X
EVT_8218002_DESC;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;When Bizri led a second Syrian delegation composed of military officers on January 11, 1958, and personally discouraged Syro-Egyptian unity, Nasser opted for a total merger. Only Syrian advocates of unity, including Salah al-Din Bitar and Akram al-Hawrani had prior knowledge of the delegation;;;X
EVT_8218002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8218003_NAME;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;Invite Iraq to United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218003_DESC;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;;;X
EVT_8218003_A;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;;;X
EVT_8218003_B;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218004_NAME;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;;;X
EVT_8218004_DESC;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961. To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Historically, although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Reasons for this could have included Nasser's refusal to cooperate with and encourage the Iraqi Free Officers a year before the coup or Qasim viewed Nasser as a threat to his supremacy as leader of Iraq.;;;X
EVT_8218004_A;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218004_B;We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);We want to join! (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8218005_NAME;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;Iraq joins UAR;;;X
EVT_8218005_DESC;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;The most supportive Arab state of the UAR was initially Iraq. Iraq sought to join the union between 1960 and 1961.  To Nasser, the revolution in Iraq left the road for Arab nationalism unblocked. Although most members of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) favored joining Iraq with the UAR, the new president Abdel Karim Qasim disagreed. Even though, internal pressure has made him change his mind and Iraq decided to join the federation.;;;X
EVT_8218005_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8218006_NAME;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;Invite Jordan to United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218006_DESC;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;;;X
EVT_8218006_A;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;;;X
EVT_8218006_B;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218007_NAME;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;;;X
EVT_8218007_DESC;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The king and conservative circles vehemently oppose the idea of federation but it's always possible that rebelling leftist supporters force the decision through.;;;X
EVT_8218007_A;Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);Republican elements win (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8218007_B;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;The idea meets clear opposition;;;X
EVT_8218008_NAME;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;Jordan joins UAR;;;X
EVT_8218008_DESC;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;The United Arab Republic was interpreted as a major threat to Jordan. Syria was seen as a source of instigation and shelter for Jordanian plotters against King Hussein. Egypt's own status as a state hostile to Western involvement in the region (and thus to the close relationship between the British, in particular, and the Jordanian and Iraqi monarchies) added to the pressure. Hussein’s response was to propose to Faisal II of Iraq a Jordanian-Iraqi union to counter the UAR, which was formed on February 14, 1958.\n\nAfter a revolution overthrew Iraqi regime and afterwards Iraq joined United Arab Republic, Jordan remained encircled by its enemies. The republican elements enforced their views on the king who had to step down amidst a raging revolution and Jordan was ready to join the United Arab Republic.;;;X
EVT_8218008_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8218010_NAME;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218010_DESC;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;In spite of political and economic differences between Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan managed to overcome their conflicting interests and merged into one federation. The sheer importance of this unification make Nasser even a greater hero and from now on, this federation will serve as a gathering point for all the Arab nationalists.;;;X
EVT_8218010_A;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;Establish the republic!;;;X
EVT_8218010_B;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;;;X
EVT_8218011_NAME;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;Dissolution of the United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218011_DESC;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;Despite the economic difficulties, what truly produced the demise of the UAR was Nasser's inability to find a suitable political system for the new regime. Given his socialist agenda in Egypt, the Ba'ath should have been his natural ally, but Nasser was hesitant to share power. Under Sarraj Syria was ruled by a brutal security force designed to suppress all opposition to the regime.\n\nThe immense increases in public sector control were accompanied by a push for centralization. Nasser abolished regional governments in favor of one central authority, which operated from Damascus February through May and Cairo the rest of the year. On September 15, 1961 Sarraj returned to Syria and resigned his post on September 26. Without any close allies to watch over Syria, Nasser was blind to the growing unrest of the military. On September 28 a group of officers staged a coup and declared Syria's independence from the UAR. Though the coup leaders were willing to renegotiate a union under terms they felt would put Syria on an equal footing with Egypt, Nasser refused such a compromise.\n\nIn speeches that followed the coup, Nasser declared he would never give up his goal of an ultimate Arab union, though he would never again achieve such a tangible victory toward this goal.;;;X
EVT_8218011_A;Such a pity;Such a pity;Such a pity;Such a pity;Such a pity;Such a pity;Such a pity;Such a pity;;;X
EVT_8218020_NAME;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;Invite Lebanon to United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218020_DESC;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;;;X
EVT_8218020_A;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;;;X
EVT_8218020_B;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218021_NAME;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;;;X
EVT_8218021_DESC;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;;;X
EVT_8218021_A;We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8218021_B;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;;;X
EVT_8218022_NAME;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;Lebanon joins UAR;;;X
EVT_8218022_DESC;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;;;X
EVT_8218022_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8218023_NAME;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;Invite Palestine to United Arab Republic;;;X
EVT_8218023_DESC;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;Now, as the United Arab Republic has a solid political base and stands as a paragon of unity in the Arab world, it may be beneficial and much easier to make other countries join our federation.;;;X
EVT_8218023_A;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;Propose the union;;;X
EVT_8218023_B;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;It doesn't interest us;;;X
EVT_8218024_NAME;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;Joining UAR;;;X
EVT_8218024_DESC;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment could be seen as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. We have a chance to become a part of this great federation.;;;X
EVT_8218024_A;We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);We want to join (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8218024_B;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;We'll stay away;;;X
EVT_8218025_NAME;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;Palestine joins UAR;;;X
EVT_8218025_DESC;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;The United Arab Republic after its permanent establishment started to be perceived as a real strength in the Arab world and a chance of unity among diverse nations of the Middle East, for the common good. Nasser gained fame for being the leading force behind this process. It is no wonder that another country decided to join our glorious union.;;;X
EVT_8218025_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8218030_NAME;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;Arab Palestine;;;X
EVT_8218030_DESC;"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";"After the war, the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the separation lines between the combatants, leaving Israel in control of some of the areas which had been designated for the Arab state under the Partition Plan, Transjordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip and Syria in control of the Himmah Area. The Arab League ""supervised"" the Egyptian trusteeship of the Palestinian government in Gaza after and secured assurances from Jordan that the 1950 Act of Union was ""without prejudice to the final settlement"".\n\nNow, as the Israeli state exists no more and these areas are under direct control of United Arab Republic, Palestine may be fully annexed by the Arab federation.";;;X
EVT_8218030_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8222000_NAME;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;;;X
EVT_8222000_DESC;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;The Warsaw Uprising was a struggle by the Polish resistance movement organization Home Army to liberate Warsaw from Nazi German occupation. The Uprising began as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. The military objective was to drive the German occupiers from the city while political objectives were to liberate Warsaw before the arrival of the Soviet Army, to underscore Polish sovereignty and to undo the division of Central Europe into spheres of influence by the Allied powers.;;;X
EVT_8222000_A;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;Warsaw rises;;;X
EVT_8222001_NAME;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;The Warsaw Uprising;;;X
EVT_8222001_DESC;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;The cause is almost hopeless but this uprising has been prepared and awaited for many months by Polish freedom fighters. There are over a million people still living in the city during the siege. They will try to create normay day-to-day life and hope for eventual victory.;;;X
EVT_8222001_A;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;The W-hour has come;;;X
EVT_8222002_NAME;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;Allied help for the Warsaw Uprising;;;X
EVT_8222002_DESC;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;In spite of our discouragement the Polish allies decided to rise up in Warsaw. Our means of help are of little value if Soviets do not agree to cooperate but our devotion to liberation of European nations means that we should at least try. How hard?;;;X
EVT_8222002_A;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;We cannot help much;;;X
EVT_8222002_B;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;We will do everything we can;;;X
EVT_8222003_NAME;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;Warsaw receives Allied help;;;X
EVT_8222003_DESC;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;Determination of the British government showed us that we are not alone even though it may still be not enough to oppose German forces. Today we receive paradrops from our Western allies to help in our cause.;;;X
EVT_8222004_NAME;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;Support for the Warsaw Uprising;;;X
EVT_8222004_DESC;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;Polish Home Army revolted in Warsaw, just before our anticipated entry. It is something that doesn't fit in our post-war considerations. The Polish government-in-exile can easily increase their dubious legitimacy to reinstate a cabinet on its own, rather than accept our regime which we already created for these lands.;;;X
EVT_8222004_A;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;Let us regroup and wait;;;X
EVT_8222004_B;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;Offer our full support;;;X
EVT_8222005_NAME;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;Warsaw receives Soviet backing;;;X
EVT_8222005_DESC;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;Contrary to what our soldiers expected after earlier cooperation with the Soviets, we received truly heroic support. Today the Polish army fighting in the Soviet ranks successfully crossed the river with huge aerial and artilleric support from the eastern bank of Vistula River.;;;X
EVT_8222005_A;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;The victory is closer than ever;;;X
EVT_8222006_NAME;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;The Warsaw Uprising failed;;;X
EVT_8222006_DESC;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;After long and bitter fights, street after street and barricade after barricade, we prevailed. The Warsaw Uprising proved to be a beautiful but short dream. This doesn't mean however that the Soviet will not push even harder now.;;;X
EVT_8222006_A;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;;;X
EVT_8222007_NAME;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;Warsaw Uprising succeeds;;;X
EVT_8222007_DESC;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;;;X
EVT_8223000_NAME;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;;;X
EVT_8223000_DESC;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;Titoist partisans have long been not only a nuisance for German occupational forces but owing to mountaineous character of these lands a close match. Communist partisans of Josip Broz, called Tito, clearly gained the upper hand, even creating short-lived so called Republic of Uzice. Now the Soviets are nearing and partisans will cooperate to break completely free!;;;X
EVT_8223000_A;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;Yugoslavia rises;;;X
EVT_8223001_NAME;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;The Tito Uprising;;;X
EVT_8223001_DESC;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;After months of preparation and battles in the woods and the mountains we are ready to fight with Germans on equal footing and reclaim our towns. Let's hope that Soviet backing comes in due time and their advance will not stall.;;;X
EVT_8223001_A;Advance!;Advance!;Advance!;Advance!;Advance!;Advance!;Advance!;Advance!;;;X
EVT_8223002_NAME;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;The Tito Uprising failed;;;X
EVT_8223002_DESC;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;In spite of preparations and advantageous terrain for their partisan operations the Titoist uprising ended in defeat showing that the were not prepared well enough for our retaliation.;;;X
EVT_8223002_A;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;Victory;;;X
EVT_8223003_NAME;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;Tito Uprising succeeds;;;X
EVT_8223003_DESC;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;Thanks to our unparalleled bravery in action we managed to push Germans out of our lands. We can claim victory!;;;X
EVT_8223003_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8224000_NAME;Poland is free;Poland is free;Poland is free;Poland is free;Poland is free;Poland is free;Poland is free;Poland is free;;;X
EVT_8224000_DESC;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;;;X
EVT_8224000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8224001_NAME;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;Yugoslavia is free;;;X
EVT_8224001_DESC;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;After self-liberation during the course of WW2, we claim our rightful possessions once more.;;;X
EVT_8224001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8225000_NAME;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe strenghtens;;;X
EVT_8225000_DESC;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our support of communist cause and surrounding fortunate circumstances allowed us to further tighten our grip over the bloc of our allies.;;;X
EVT_8225000_A;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;We are already in complete control;;;X
EVT_8225000_B;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;We are now in complete control;;;X
EVT_8225000_C;Our control is now much more confident;Our control is now much more considerable;Our control is now much more considerable;Our control is now much more considerable;Our control is now much more considerable;Our control is now much more considerable;Our control is now much more considerable;Our control is now much more considerable;;;X
EVT_8225000_D;Our control is now more confident;Our control is now more considerable;Our control is now more considerable;Our control is now more considerable;Our control is now more considerable;Our control is now more considerable;Our control is now more considerable;Our control is now more considerable;;;X
EVT_8225000_E;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;Our control is no longer faltering;;;X
EVT_8225000_F;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;We saved our bloc from dissolution;;;X
EVT_8225001_NAME;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;Our control over Central-Eastern Europe weakens;;;X
EVT_8225001_DESC;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;After recent turn of world events, our ineptitude in supporting communist cause and surrounding unfortunate circumstances resulted in loosening our grip over the bloc of our allies.;;;X
EVT_8225001_A;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;Our control is no longer complete;;;X
EVT_8225001_B;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;Our control is now less confident;;;X
EVT_8225001_C;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;Our control is now much less confident;;;X
EVT_8225001_D;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;Our is now faltering;;;X
EVT_8225001_E;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;Our bloc is now on the verge of dissolution;;;X
EVT_8225001_F;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;Eastern Europe is no longer ours!;;;X
EVT_8225002_NAME;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;Our Big Soviet brother is not watching;;;X
EVT_8225002_DESC;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and they no longer hold sway over each aspect of our internal policy.;;;X
EVT_8225002_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8225003_NAME;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;Unsure future of the Warsaw Pact;;;X
EVT_8225003_DESC;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;After recent turn of world events and misfortunes of Soviet foreign policy, Soviet control over its communist puppets around the world was weakened and our military cooperation in the time of peace is currently put on hold.;;;X
EVT_8225003_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8225004_NAME;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;Rise of nations in Eastern Europe;;;X
EVT_8225004_DESC;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;;;X
EVT_8225004_A;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;;;X
EVT_8225004_B;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;Let's find a third way;;;X
EVT_8225005_NAME;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;Dissolution of the Soviet bloc;;;X
EVT_8225005_DESC;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;Many countries in Europe after World War II came into sphere of influence of Soviet Union which enforced communist principles of economy under close guidance single-party socialist state. But without supervision of a big neighbor all those countries can now breathe in relief and choose their own ways.;;;X
EVT_8225005_A;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;Down with communism!;;;X
EVT_8226020_NAME;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;Supreme Commander Order #20;;;X
EVT_8226020_DESC;"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";"Hero City was a Soviet honorary title awarded for outstanding heroism during The Great Patriotic War. It was awarded to twelve cities of the Soviet Union. In addition the Brest Fortress was awarded an equivalent title of Hero Fortress. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union.\n\nAccording to the statute, the hero city is issued the Order of Lenin, the Gold Star medal, and the certificate of the heroic deed from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Also, the corresponding obelisk is installed in the city.\n\nThe usage of the term ""hero-city"" is dated to articles in Pravda as early as in 1942. The first official usage of the title is dated by May 1, 1945, when Joseph Stalin issued his Supreme Commander Order #20 commanding to fire salutes in ""hero cities Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Odessa."" The next cities became honored with the title in the following decades, with the last cities given this award in 1985.";;;X
EVT_8226020_A;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;Hail to the heroes!;;;X
EVT_8226030_NAME;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;Hero Fortress Brest;;;X
EVT_8226030_DESC;"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";"The fortress in Brest was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, although cut off from the outside world and having run out of food, water and ammunition, fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months.";;;X
EVT_8226030_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226031_NAME;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;Hero City Leningrad;;;X
EVT_8226031_DESC;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;The city of Leningrad saw what is regarded as one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, one of the cities with a large amount of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down.\n\nThousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery continued to bombard the city. Although the siege lasted for 900 days, the city did not surrender. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with a long trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.\n\nWhen Soviet forces eventually lifted the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad.;;;X
EVT_8226031_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226032_NAME;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;Hero City Stalingrad;;;X
EVT_8226032_DESC;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the ruined city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the European Theatre of World War II. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the German-Soviet War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at nearly 2 million, within a period of 200 days.;;;X
EVT_8226032_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226033_NAME;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;Hero City Odessa;;;X
EVT_8226033_DESC;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defense of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs.;;;X
EVT_8226033_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226034_NAME;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;Hero City Sevastopol;;;X
EVT_8226034_DESC;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment, with such unusual pieces of ordnance as the Mörser Karl self-propelled mortar, and the gigantic Schwerer Gustav railroad cannon. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944.;;;X
EVT_8226034_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226035_NAME;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;Hero City Moscow;;;X
EVT_8226035_DESC;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders suffered their first defeat in 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, at the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Joseph Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped build defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the battle provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population.;;;X
EVT_8226035_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226036_NAME;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;Hero City Kiev;;;X
EVT_8226036_DESC;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. The prolonged resistance effectively disrupted the German plans of blitzkrieg. However, in military terms, the battle was a great victory for the German Army and a disaster for the Soviets. It had a huge effect on morale, and Adolf Hitler praised the victory as the greatest battle in history.\n\nDuring the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943.;;;X
EVT_8226036_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226037_NAME;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;Hero City Novorossiysk;;;X
EVT_8226037_DESC;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Intense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until it was captured by the Germans in mid-September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments.;;;X
EVT_8226037_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226038_NAME;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;Hero City Kerch;;;X
EVT_8226038_DESC;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944.;;;X
EVT_8226038_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226039_NAME;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;Hero City Minsk;;;X
EVT_8226039_DESC;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;The city of Minsk, capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan activity behind enemy lines.;;;X
EVT_8226039_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226040_NAME;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;Hero City Tula;;;X
EVT_8226040_DESC;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;Tula, a historical Russian city with important military industry south of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive.;;;X
EVT_8226040_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226041_NAME;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;Hero City Murmansk;;;X
EVT_8226041_DESC;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line.;;;X
EVT_8226041_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226042_NAME;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;Hero City Smolensk;;;X
EVT_8226042_DESC;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened.;;;X
EVT_8226042_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226043_NAME;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;Hero City Kuybyshev;;;X
EVT_8226043_DESC;"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";"Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. During World War II, Kuybyshev was chosen to be the capital of the Soviet Union should Moscow fall to the invading Germans. In October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to the city. A dug-out for Joseph Stalin known as ""Stalin's Bunker"" was constructed but never used. As a leading industrial center, Kuybyshev played a major role in arming the country. From the very first months of World War II the city supplied the front with aircraft, firearms, and ammunition. The famous military parade of November 7, 1941 was held on the central square of the city. On March 5, 1942, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony was first performed in the city's Opera and Ballet House by the Bolshoi Theater Orchestra conducted by S. A. Samosud. The symphony was broadcast all over the world. Health centers and most of the city's hospital facilities were turned into base hospitals. Kuybyshev remained the alternative capital of the Soviet Union until the summer of 1943.";;;X
EVT_8226043_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226044_NAME;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;Hero City Vladivostok;;;X
EVT_8226044_DESC;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;Although the city historically did not experience any battles during World War II, its importance would mean that heavy fighting in its defence would most probably take place. The city was the home port of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, letting USSR project its influence on the Far East theather.;;;X
EVT_8226044_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8226050_NAME;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;World superpower;;;X
EVT_8226050_DESC;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II because the West did not open up a second ground front in Europe until the invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy. Approximately 26.6 million Soviets, among them 18 million civilians, were killed in the war.The retreating Soviet army was ordered to pursue a 'scorched earth' policy whereby retreating Soviet troops were ordered to destroy civilian infrastructure and food supplies so that the Nazi German troops could not use them. The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1946–48 due to war devastation that cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.\n\nIn a famous Victory Day toast in May 1945, Stalin extolled the role of the Russian people in the defeat of the fascists: 'I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people. I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.... And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet Government was the decisive strength, which secured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity – over fascism....'\n\nHowever, the Soviet Union recovered its production capabilities and overcame pre-war capabilities, becoming the country with the most powerful land army in history by the end of the war, and having the most powerful military production capabilities. In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union extended its political and military influence over Eastern Europe, in a move that was seen by some as a continuation of the older policies of the Russian Empire. Some territories that had been lost by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were annexed by the Soviet Union after World War II.;;;X
EVT_8226050_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8227000_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227000_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227000_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227001_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227001_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227001_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227002_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227002_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227002_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227003_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227003_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227003_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227004_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227004_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227004_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227005_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227005_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227005_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227006_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227006_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227006_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227007_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227007_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227007_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227008_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227008_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227008_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227009_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227009_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227009_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227010_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227010_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227010_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227011_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227011_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227011_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227012_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227012_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227012_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227013_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227013_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227013_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227014_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227014_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227014_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227015_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227015_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227015_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227016_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227016_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227016_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227017_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227017_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227017_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227018_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227018_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227018_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227019_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227019_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;;;X
EVT_8227019_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227100_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227100_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227100_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227100_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227101_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227101_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227101_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227101_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227102_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227102_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227102_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227102_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227103_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227103_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227103_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227103_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227104_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227104_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227104_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227104_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227105_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227105_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227105_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227105_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227106_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227106_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227106_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227106_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227107_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227107_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227107_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227107_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227108_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227108_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227108_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227108_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227109_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227109_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227109_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227109_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227110_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227110_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227110_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227110_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227111_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227111_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227111_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227111_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227112_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227112_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227112_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227112_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227113_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227113_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227113_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227113_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227114_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227114_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227114_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227114_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227115_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227115_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227115_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227115_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227116_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227116_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227116_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227116_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227117_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227117_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227117_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227117_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227118_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227118_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227118_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227118_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227119_NAME;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;Restructurization of the Army;;;X
EVT_8227119_DESC;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently too big to be easily supported and voices are raised to question whether there is really point to overburden our citizens with huge costs the army incurs. Our financial advisors ask for prudence and even hawkish members of army staff cannot find good reasoning for such extravaganza.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;;;X
EVT_8227119_A;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;Limit army size;;;X
EVT_8227119_B;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;Maintain army at all costs;;;X
EVT_8227200_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227200_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 25 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227200_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227201_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227201_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 40 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 40 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227201_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227202_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227202_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 60 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 60 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 40 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 20 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227202_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227203_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227203_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 80 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 80 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 60 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 40 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227203_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227204_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227204_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 90 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 100 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 80 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 60 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227204_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227205_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227205_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 115 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 125 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 100 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 80 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227205_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227206_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227206_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 135 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 150 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 125 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 100 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227206_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227207_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227207_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 155 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 175 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 150 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 125 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227207_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227208_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227208_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 170 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 200 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 175 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 150 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227208_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227209_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227209_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 220 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 200 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 175 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227209_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227210_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227210_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 245 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 300 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 200 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227210_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227211_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227211_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 320 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 400 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 300 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 250 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227211_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227212_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227212_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 420 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 400 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 300 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227212_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227213_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227213_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 600 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 750 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 400 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227213_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227214_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227214_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 820 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1000 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 750 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 500 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227214_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227215_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227215_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1000 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1250 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1000 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 750 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227215_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227216_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227216_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1240 land divisions if we are at peace and have less than 1500 IC OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1250 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1000 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227216_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227217_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227217_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1400 land divisions if we are at peace OR if we have an autocratic regime and have less than 1500 IC OR if we are at war and have less than 1250 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227217_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227218_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227218_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 1600 land divisions if we have an autocratic regime OR if we are at war and have less than 1500 IC.;;;X
EVT_8227218_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227219_NAME;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;Army size is close to limits;;;X
EVT_8227219_DESC;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;Our armies are currently oversized and it is becoming difficult to explain such a financial burden to the ruling circles and the society. As soon as we breach the limit of land divisions, we may be forced to cut on army size, so preferably we should keep our army below that number.\n\nWe are limited to 2000 land divisions if we are at war.;;;X
EVT_8227219_A;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;I'll take it into account;;;X
EVT_8227998_NAME;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;Turn army limiting off;;;X
EVT_8227998_DESC;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;As a debugging measure, you may turn army limiting off (both for you and AI players).;;;X
EVT_8227998_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8227999_NAME;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;Turn army limiting on;;;X
EVT_8227999_DESC;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;If you wish, you may turn army limiting on again (both for you and AI players).;;;X
EVT_8227999_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228001_NAME;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;French situation in Indochina;;;X
EVT_8228001_DESC;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;After Japanese pulled out from Indochina in late 1945, the area was contested between various forces, some of them working towards a unifed independent Vietnamese state, some of them willing to recreate pre-war order. In January 1946, Vietnam had its first National Assembly election (won by the Viet Minh in central and northern Vietnam), which drafted the first constitution, but the French tried to regain power by force. An accord between France and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was made 6 March 1946 but difference of viewpoints made it difficult to work together for the benefit of Vietnam. It was clear that the war between Viet Minh forces and France will break soon. Realizing that colonialism was coming to an end worldwide, France fashioned a semi-independent State of Vietnam, within the French Union, with Emperor Bao Dai as Head of State.\n\nNow it is time to decide how much help will we send to Vietnam to defeat Viet Ming and restore our colonial order or will we ask for help from abroad. Note that if we ask Americans, we may have to accept the fact that the action will be carried out by the closes American ally around, Chiang, and Chinese may leave Vietnam for us afterwards or remain there for good.;;;X
EVT_8228001_A;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;Ask Americans for help and send our troops as well;;;X
EVT_8228001_B;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;Stand against all odds but alone;;;X
EVT_8228001_C;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;Provide limited support to our colony;;;X
EVT_8228001_D;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;Prepare to leave Indochina for good;;;X
EVT_8228002_NAME;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;France asks for our assistance in Vietnam;;;X
EVT_8228002_DESC;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;With the fall of the short lived Japanese colony of the Empire of Vietnam, freshly reinstated French Republic wanted to restore its colonial rule in French Indochina as the final step of the Liberation of France. The French representative was present on board of USS Missouri when Japanese surrender was made. However, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina after the war was over. Roosevelt even offered Chiang Kai-shek to place all of Indochina under Chinese rule. Chiang Kai-shek supposedly replied: 'Under no circumstances!'.\n\nStill, Chinese sent temporarily about 200 000 troops to Northern Vietnam to disarm Japanese and restore order, threatening the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a temporary peace agreement. USA, theoretically, was too able to use troops stationing still in the Pacific to assist France further.;;;X
EVT_8228002_A;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;Let's ask Chiang to intervene;;;X
EVT_8228002_B;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;Stay strictly neutral;;;X
EVT_8228002_C;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;Help our allies at once!;;;X
EVT_8228003_NAME;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;Chiang Kai-Shek is given free hand in Vietnam;;;X
EVT_8228003_DESC;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;Acting upon American tacit agreement, 200 000 troops of the Chinese 1st Army arrived in what would become North Vietnam (Indochina above the 16th parallel). They had been sent by Chiang Kai-shek under General Lu Han to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces occupying that area which had been designated to Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese forces initially kept the French Colonial soldiers interned with the acquiescence of the Americans. The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and put pressure on their opponents. Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to manoeuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement, and in February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and renounce their extraterritorial privileges. This was done in exchange for withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region but if Chinese insisted on coercing Indochina into their sphere of influence, they would be very hard to stop.;;;X
EVT_8228003_A;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;Don't go too far;;;X
EVT_8228003_B;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;Destination: South!;;;X
EVT_8228005_NAME;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;American support in First Indochina War;;;X
EVT_8228005_DESC;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;At the beginning of the war, the U.S. was neutral in the conflict because of opposition to imperialism, because the Viet Minh had recently been their allies, and because most of its attention was focused on Europe. Then the U.S. government gradually began supporting the French in their war effort, primarily through Mutual Defense Assistance Act, as a means of stabilizing the French Fourth Republic in which the French Communist Party was a significant political force. A dramatic shift occurred in American policy after the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War. After the Moch–Marshall meeting of September 23, 1950, in Washington, the United States started to support the French Union effort politically, logistically and financially. Officially, US involvement did not include use of armed force, at least not openly nor on large scale until 1960s.\n\nHowever, with overt anti-communist policies in place, American financial, logistical and intelligence support could easily transform into full engagement.;;;X
EVT_8228005_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8228010_NAME;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;;;X
EVT_8228010_DESC;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;;;X
EVT_8228010_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8228010_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8228011_NAME;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;First Indochina War;;;X
EVT_8228011_DESC;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;Vietnam was, since the end of WW2 and departure of Japanese troops, an area of great tensions between French colonial administration (with supporting Vietnamese administration that had token autonomy) and Viet Minh independence movement. Escalation of these tensions into full-scale war was only a matter of time.\n\nHistorically, fighting broke out in Haiphong after a conflict of interest in import duty at the port between the Viet Minh government and the French. On November 23, 1946 the French fleet began a naval bombardment of the city. The Viet Minh quickly agreed to a cease-fire and left the cities but soon returned with 30 000 men to attack the city. Although the French were outnumbered, their superior weaponry and naval support made any Viet Minh attack impossible. In December, hostilities also broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh was forced to evacuate the capital in favor of remote mountain areas. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with the French controlling most of the country except far-flung areas.;;;X
EVT_8228011_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8228011_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8228020_NAME;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;Vietnam People's Army grows in strength;;;X
EVT_8228020_DESC;The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';The very beginnings of Vietnam People's Army can be traced back to period of Japanese occupation but at the beginning of Indochina conflicts Viet Minh could rely only on intermittent guerilla attacks. During following years, army of North Vietnam grew in strength, slowly transforming from highly maneouverable insurgent bands to similarly mobile conventional forces. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Battle of Dien Bien Phu, at the end of the war, was 'the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle.';;;X
EVT_8228020_A;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;;;X
EVT_8228020_B;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;;;X
EVT_8228021_NAME;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;Vietnamese National Army grows in strength;;;X
EVT_8228021_DESC;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;After the State of Vietnam was recognized by France as an independent country ruled by the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, and the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) was soon created. The VNA fought in joint operations with the French Union's French Far East Expeditionary Corps against the communist Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh. Benefiting with French assistance the VNA quickly became a modern army modelled after the Expeditionary Corps. It included infantry, artillery, transmission, armored cavalry, airborne, airforce, navy and a national military academy. By 1953 troopers as well as officers were all Vietnamese, the latter having been trained in Ecoles des Cadres.;;;X
EVT_8228021_A;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;We welcome new troops;;;X
EVT_8228021_B;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;We want supplies instead;;;X
EVT_8228022_NAME;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;French support for Vietnam;;;X
EVT_8228022_DESC;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;In the French news, the Indochina War was presented as a direct continuation of the Korean War where France had fought as a UN French battalion then incorporated in a U.S. unit. In a later interview General Marcel Bigeard argued that 'one of the deepest mistakes done by the French during the war was the propaganda telling you are fighting for Freedom, you are fighting against Communism'. In the latest days of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 652 non-paratrooper soldiers from all army corps from cavalry to infantry to artillery dropped for the first and last time of their life to support their comrades. The Cold War excuse was later used by General Maurice Challe through his famous 'Do you want Mers El Kebir & Algiers to become Soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?', during the Algerian War of 1961, with limited effect though.;;;X
EVT_8228022_A;Increase support;Increase support;Increase support;Increase support;Increase support;Increase support;Increase support;Increase support;;;X
EVT_8228022_B;Decrease support;Decrease support;Decrease support;Decrease support;Decrease support;Decrease support;Decrease support;Decrease support;;;X
EVT_8228022_C;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;;;X
EVT_8228030_NAME;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;France employs hedgehog tactics;;;X
EVT_8228030_DESC;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;Throughout the war theater, the Viet Minh cut French supply lines and began to seriously wear down the resolve of the French forces. There were continued raids, skirmishes and guerrilla attacks, but through most of the rest of the year each side withdrew to prepare itself for larger operations. The Battle of Na San saw the first use of the French commanders 'hedgehog' tactics consisting in setting up a well defended outpost to get the Viet Minh out of the jungle and force it to fight a conventional battle instead of ambushes. In late November and early December 1952, Giap attacked the French outpost at Na San, which was essentially an 'air-land base', a fortified camp supplied only by air. Giap's forces were beaten back repeatedly with very heavy losses. The French hoped that by repeating the strategy on a much larger scale, they would be able to lure Giap into committing the bulk of his forces in a massed assault. This would enable superior French artillery, armor, and air support to decimate the exposed Viet Minh forces. The experience at Na San convinced the French of the viability of the fortified airhead concept.;;;X
EVT_8228030_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228031_NAME;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;Tassigny takes over command;;;X
EVT_8228031_DESC;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;The military situation improved for France when their new commander, General Jean Marie de Lattre de Tassigny, built a fortified line from Hanoi to the Gulf of Tonkin, across the Red River Delta, to hold the Viet Minh in place and use his troops to smash them against this barricade, which became known as the 'De Lattre Line'. This led to a period of success for the French.;;;X
EVT_8228031_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228032_NAME;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;Communists take power just behind the border;;;X
EVT_8228032_DESC;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;The Vietnamese Communists obtained considerable outside support in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong succeeded in taking control of China by defeating the Kuomintang, thus gaining a major political ally and supply area just across the border.;;;X
EVT_8228032_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228033_NAME;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;Struggle in green hell;;;X
EVT_8228033_DESC;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;French hedgehog tactics were used successfully since victorious battle of Na San. Deep inside Vietnamese jungle, at Dien Bien Phu, their leadership wanted to use the same strategy. French staff officers disastrously failed to treat seriously several crucial differences between Dien Bien Phu and Na San. At Na San, the French commanded most of the high ground with overwhelming artillery support. At Dien Bien Phu, however, the Viet Minh controlled much of the high ground around the valley, their artillery far exceeded French expectations and they outnumbered the French four-to-one.\n\nThe Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Dien Bien Phu and bombarded French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted, and the anti-aircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached them. The garrison was overrun after a two-month siege and most French forces surrendered which led shortly to peace accords.;;;X
EVT_8228033_A;The horror…;The horror…;The horror…;The horror…;The horror…;The horror…;The horror…;The horror…;;;X
EVT_8228034_NAME;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;Unrest in South Vietnam;;;X
EVT_8228034_DESC;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;In South Vietnam, although Ngo Dinh Diem personally was respected for his nationalism, political stability and policies triggering rapid economic growth, he ran a nepotistic and authoritarian government. Elections were routinely rigged and Diem favored of minority Roman Catholics on many issues, believing that Catholics were 'more trustworthy', more anti-communist and more impermeable to Viet Cong infiltration. His religious policies sparked protests from the Buddhist community. Constant warfare took its toll against the country and the society was growing increasingly weary.;;;X
EVT_8228034_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228040_NAME;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;;;X
EVT_8228040_DESC;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;;;X
EVT_8228040_A;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;Allow peace accords and division of Vietnam;;;X
EVT_8228040_B;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;Insist on continuing the fight;;;X
EVT_8228041_NAME;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;;;X
EVT_8228041_DESC;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;;;X
EVT_8228041_A;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;;;X
EVT_8228041_B;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;;;X
EVT_8228042_NAME;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;Preparations for Geneva Conference;;;X
EVT_8228042_DESC;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;The Geneva Conference was a conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, whose purpose was to attempt to find a way to unify Vietnam and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the whole conference while different countries concerned with the two questions were also represented during the discussion of their respective questions, which included the countries that sent troops through the United Nations to the Korean War and the various countries that ended the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords. These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bao Dai.\n\nA 'Conference Final Declaration', issued by the British chairman of the conference, provided that a 'general election' be held by July 1956 to create a unified Vietnamese state. Although presented as a consensus view, this document was not accepted by the delegates of either South Vietnam or the United States.;;;X
EVT_8228042_A;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;Agree to make peace;;;X
EVT_8228042_B;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;Let the war rage on!;;;X
EVT_8228043_NAME;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;Geneva Accords;;;X
EVT_8228043_DESC;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;On April 27, 1954, the Conference produced a declaration which supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina. In addition, the Conference declaration agreed upon the cessation of hostilities and the introduction of foreign involvement (or troops) in internal Indochina affairs. Northern and southern zones were drawn into which opposing troops were to withdraw, to facilitate the cessation of hostilities between the Vietnamese forces and those that had supported the French. Viet Minh units, having advanced to the far south while fighting the French, retreated from these positions, in accordance with the Agreement, to north of the ceasefire line, awaiting unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections. The United States took note and acknowledged that the agreement existed, but refused to sign the agreement, to avoid being legally bound to it.\n\nThe accords carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a 'provisional military demarcation line', 'on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal'. To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: 'The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary'.;;;X
EVT_8228043_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228050_NAME;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;;;X
EVT_8228050_DESC;"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";;;X
EVT_8228050_A;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;;;X
EVT_8228050_B;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;;;X
EVT_8228051_NAME;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;Nationwide elections;;;X
EVT_8228051_DESC;"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";"Geneva Peace Accords provided for quick organization of nationwide referendum to choose new Vietnamese leadership so that unification process could be put into action. Historically, both sides were reluctant to allow free and democratic elections, fearing that the other side would rig the results; especially in South Vietnam there was much fear that communists would win the election, mostly thanks to popularity and authority of Ho Chi Minh who backed Viet Minh through the war years.\n\nWith the backing of the United States and after winning referendum marred by irregularities, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. Meanwhile, both sides violated provisions of the Accords, with both regimes engaging in military buildups contrary to them, with Hanoi creating a clandestine army in the South prior to the elections. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, which was created as a replacement for the Vietnamese National Army.";;;X
EVT_8228051_A;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;Agree to elections;;;X
EVT_8228051_B;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;There won't be any elections;;;X
EVT_8228052_NAME;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;;;X
EVT_8228052_DESC;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;;;X
EVT_8228052_A;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;;;X
EVT_8228052_B;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;;;X
EVT_8228053_NAME;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;Organization of elections;;;X
EVT_8228053_DESC;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;In spite of initial fears that the nationwide elections will not materialize, both parts of Vietnam are going to hold them as they were planned, with a view to create a universally acceptable government. Still, with so much war tensions,;;;X
EVT_8228053_A;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;Rig the elections!;;;X
EVT_8228053_B;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;Let them go mostly fair;;;X
EVT_8228054_NAME;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;;;X
EVT_8228054_DESC;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;Outcome of Vietnamese elections;;;X
EVT_8228054_A;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;North Vietnam wins;;;X
EVT_8228054_B;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;South Vietnam wins;;;X
EVT_8228060_NAME;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228060_DESC;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but communists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;;;X
EVT_8228060_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228060_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228061_NAME;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;Left-wing radical Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228061_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to right-wing southerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively leftist line.;;;X
EVT_8228061_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228062_NAME;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228062_DESC;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out that both countries rigged their parts of the elections but nationalists did it better or simply had more real domestic support. Nevertheless, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on at least some understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;;;X
EVT_8228062_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228062_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228063_NAME;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;Social conservative Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228063_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We will have to make some concessions to left-wing northerners but the elections were not fair by any measure and hardly anyone expects us to abandon our distinctively rightist line.;;;X
EVT_8228063_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228064_NAME;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228064_DESC;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because commmunists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;;;X
EVT_8228064_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228064_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228065_NAME;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228065_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;;;X
EVT_8228065_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228066_NAME;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228066_DESC;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;;;X
EVT_8228066_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228066_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228067_NAME;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228067_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;;;X
EVT_8228067_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228068_NAME;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228068_DESC;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It must have been a terrible luck or maybe our genuine support was laughably thin but we failed to win the elections even though they were rigged on a great scale. Even in this situation, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but we can't count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;;;X
EVT_8228068_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228068_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228069_NAME;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;Leninist Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228069_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make too much concessions to right-wing southerners because we won elections against all odds and nobody expects us to abandon the line that got us that far.;;;X
EVT_8228069_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228070_NAME;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228070_DESC;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;It turns out our benevolence was betrayed because nationalists rigged their parts of the elections and thus easily won. Anyway, we can still renege on our decision to honor the elections and we may count on understanding among our compatriots and on international scene.;;;X
EVT_8228070_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228070_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228071_NAME;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;Paternal autocrat Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228071_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! We won't have to make much concessions to left-wing northerners because we won elections by a very wide margin, even if many people suspect that they were not fair.;;;X
EVT_8228071_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228072_NAME;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;Ho Chi Minh wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228072_DESC;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;;;X
EVT_8228072_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228072_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228073_NAME;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;Social liberal Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228073_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our leftist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;;;X
EVT_8228073_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228074_NAME;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;Ngo Dinh Diem wins the elections;;;X
EVT_8228074_DESC;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;Idealists' dream have been fulfilled and the elections were fair, both on our side, and everything seem to show that on the other side of the perimeter as well. Still, ballots were cast mostly against us. We can still renege on our decision to honor the elections but it will meet huge domestic opposition and international uproar.;;;X
EVT_8228074_A;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;Denounce the results!;;;X
EVT_8228074_B;Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);Accept the results (Game Over);;;X
EVT_8228075_NAME;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;Market liberal Vietnam emerges;;;X
EVT_8228075_DESC;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;After successful elections, united Vietnam emerges! Democratic elections popularized an idea of representation and liberty in Vietnamese society and even if we succeeded in promoting our rightist program, we will have to work within framework of a democratic state.;;;X
EVT_8228075_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228100_NAME;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;;;X
EVT_8228100_DESC;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;;;X
EVT_8228100_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8228100_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8228101_NAME;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;Vietnam War;;;X
EVT_8228101_DESC;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that followed the First Indochina War and the failed attempt to reunite Vietnam as per Geneva Accords in 1954. It was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other anti-communist countries. The Viet Cong, a lightly armed South Vietnamese communist common front directed by the North, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The Vietnam People's Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery, and airstrikes.\n\nThe U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state. American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.;;;X
EVT_8228101_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8228101_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8228110_NAME;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;Popular support for Viet Minh;;;X
EVT_8228110_DESC;"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";"In March 1956, southern communist leader Le Duan presented a plan to revive the insurgency entitled 'The Road to the South' to the other members of the Politburo in Hanoi, but as China and the Soviets both opposed confrontation at this time, Le Duan's plan was rejected. However the North Vietnamese leadership approved tentative measures to revive the southern insurgency in December 1956. The North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a ""people's war"" on the South at a session in January 1959 and in May, Group 559 was established to maintain and upgrade the Ho Chi Minh Trail, at this time a six-month mountain trek through Laos. About 500 of the 'regroupees' of 1954 were sent south on the trail during its first year of operation. The first arms delivery via the trail was completed in August 1959 and soon North Vietnamese engagement increased in strength and number of troops.";;;X
EVT_8228110_A;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;Put more troops on the trail!;;;X
EVT_8228110_B;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;We should save on supplies;;;X
EVT_8228111_NAME;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;American limited support in Vietnam War;;;X
EVT_8228111_DESC;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In May 1961, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visited Saigon and enthusiastically declared Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.' Asked why he had made the comment, Johnson replied, 'Diem's the only boy we got out there.' Johnson assured Diem of more aid in molding a fighting force that could resist the communists.\n\nKennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.' The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption, and political promotions all played a part in emasculating the ARVN.\n\nKennedy advisers Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the 'danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did.' By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.;;;X
EVT_8228111_A;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;;;X
EVT_8228111_B;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;;;X
EVT_8228112_NAME;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;American full support in Vietnam War;;;X
EVT_8228112_DESC;"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"Lyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. 'From a strength of approximately 5,000 at the start of 1959 the Viet Cong's ranks grew to about 100,000 at the end of 1964...Between 1961 and 1964 the Army's strength rose from about 850,000 to nearly a million men.' The numbers for U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam during the same period were quite different; 2,000 in 1961, rising rapidly to 16,500 in 1964.\n\nThe National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";;;X
EVT_8228112_A;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;Welcome the Yankee boys!;;;X
EVT_8228112_B;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;Supplies is all we need;;;X
EVT_8228120_NAME;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;Our stance in Vietnam War;;;X
EVT_8228120_DESC;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his 'Great Society' and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.;;;X
EVT_8228120_A;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;Offer limited help at first;;;X
EVT_8228120_B;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;Offer far-reaching help at once;;;X
EVT_8228120_C;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;Stay neutral;;;X
EVT_8228130_NAME;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;Strategic Hamlet Program;;;X
EVT_8228130_DESC;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;The Strategic Hamlet Program was a plan by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to combat the Communist insurgency by means of population transfer. In 1961, U.S. advisors in South Vietnam, along with the Diem regime, began the implementation of a plan attempted to isolate rural peasants from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF). The Strategic Hamlet Program, along with its predecessor, the Rural Community Development Program, played an important role in the shaping of events in South Vietnam during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Both of these programs attempted to separate rural peasants from Communist insurgents by creating communities that in some ways resembled concentration camps. The program led to a decrease in support for Diem’s regime and an increase in sympathy for Communist efforts. By the end of 1963, 12000 of the 17000 strategic hamlets had been dismantled, liberating 5 million people (out of a total population of 14 million at that time).;;;X
EVT_8228130_A;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;It will work, for a while;;;X
EVT_8228130_B;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;It makes no sense;;;X
EVT_8228131_NAME;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party;;;X
EVT_8228131_DESC;"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";"In 1960, at the Third Party Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Le Duan arrived from the South and strongly advocated the use of revolutionary warfare to topple Diem's government, unifying the country, and establish communism nationwide. Despite some elements in the Party opposing the use of force, Le Duan won the seat of First Secretary of the Party. As Ho Chi Minh was aging, Le Duan virtually took the helm of war from him. The first step of his war plan was coordinating a rural uprising in the South and forming the Viet Cong toward the end of 1960. Arms, supplies, and troops came from North Vietnam into South Vietnam via a system of trails, named the Ho Chi Minh trail, that branched into Laos and Cambodia before entering South Vietnam. At first, most foreign aid for North Vietnam came from China, as Le Duan distanced Vietnam from the ""revisionist"" policy of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev. However, under Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union picked up the pace of aid and provided North Vietnam with heavy weapons, such as T-54 tanks, artillery, MIG fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles etc.";;;X
EVT_8228131_A;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;Put hawkish policies in place;;;X
EVT_8228131_B;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;Let's remain moderate;;;X
EVT_8228132_NAME;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;Coup against Ngo Dinh Diem;;;X
EVT_8228132_DESC;As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';As the Buddhist crisis deepened in July 1963, noncommunist Vietnamese nationalists and the military began preparations for a coup. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem Upon hearing that a coup d'état was being designed by ARVN generals, and supported by the CIA, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. On 1 November, with only the palace guard remaining to defend Diem and his younger brother, Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem exile if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, 2 November. The brothers were assassinated together in the back of an armoured personnel carrier with a bayonet and revolver.\n\nUpon learning of Diem's ouster and assassination, Ho Chi Minh reportedly stated: 'I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.' The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit:\n\n'The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists.';;;X
EVT_8228132_A;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;Ngo Dinh Diem is killed!;;;X
EVT_8228132_B;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;Coup fails and the country degenerates into chaos;;;X
EVT_8228140_NAME;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;Viet Cong raids the countryside;;;X
EVT_8228140_DESC;The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';The Viet Cong, or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled. Many soldiers were recruited in South Vietnam, but others were attached to the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular North Vietnamese army. During the war, communists and anti-war spokesmen insisted the Viet Cong was an insurgency indigenous to the South, while the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments portrayed the group as a tool of Hanoi.\n\nSouthern Vietnamese communists established the National Liberation Front in 1960 to encourage the participation of non-communists in the insurgency. Many of the Viet Cong's core members were 'regroupees,' southern Viet Minh who had resettled in the North after the Geneva Accord (1954). Hanoi gave the regroupees military training and sent them back to the South along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early 1960s. The NLF called for Southerners to 'overthrow the camouflaged colonial regime of the American imperialists' and to make 'efforts toward the peaceful unification.';;;X
EVT_8228140_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228150_NAME;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;Vietnam War discontent;;;X
EVT_8228150_DESC;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;During the course of the Vietnam War a large segment of the American population opposed U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. Early opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam drew its inspiration from the Geneva Conference of 1954. American support of Diem in refusing elections was thought to be thwarting the very democracy that America claimed to be supporting. John Kennedy, while Senator, opposed involvement in Vietnam. Opposition to the Vietnam War tended to unite groups opposed to U.S. anti-communism, imperialism and colonialism. Others opposed the war based on the theory of Just War or wanted to show solidarity with the people of Vietnam. Even before mass pacifist movements of late 1960s, first signs of opposition against American interventionism could already be felt.;;;X
EVT_8228150_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228151_NAME;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;Change our involvement in Vietnam War;;;X
EVT_8228151_DESC;"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";"The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that 'to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.'\n\nLyndon B. Johnson, as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his ""Great Society"" and progressive social programs. Soon though Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam with his own, to expand the war. The National Security Council recommended a three-stage escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. The bombing campaign, which ultimately lasted three years, was intended to force North Vietnam to cease its support for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam by threatening to destroy North Vietnam's air defenses and industrial infrastructure. As well, it was aimed at bolstering the morale of the South Vietnamese. The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the communists that 'we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age'.";;;X
EVT_8228151_A;More involvement;More involvement;More involvement;More involvement;More involvement;More involvement;More involvement;More involvement;;;X
EVT_8228151_B;Less involvement;Less involvement;Less involvement;Less involvement;Less involvement;Less involvement;Less involvement;Less involvement;;;X
EVT_8228151_C;Pull out!;Pull out!;Pull out!;Pull out!;Pull out!;Pull out!;Pull out!;Pull out!;;;X
EVT_8228151_D;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;Don't change anything;;;X
EVT_8228198_NAME;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;North Vietnamese war economy;;;X
EVT_8228198_DESC;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. In the North, the communist regime's First Five-Year Plan gave priority to heavy industry, but priority subsequently shifted to agriculture and light industry. Continuous air strikes in the North, slowed large-scale construction considerably as laborers were diverted to repairing bomb damage. Interruptions in electric power, the destruction of petroleum storage facilities, and labor shortages led to a slowdown in industrial and agricultural activity. The disruption of transportation routes by U.S. bombing further slowed distribution of raw materials and consumer goods. In 1960s in the North, all 6 industrial cities, 28 out of 30 provincial towns, 96 out of 116 district towns, and 4,000 out of 5,788 communes were either severely damaged or destroyed. All power stations, 1,600 hydraulics works, 6 railway lines, all roads, bridges, and sea and inland ports were seriously damaged or destroyed. In addition, 400,000 cattle were killed, and several thousand square kilometres of farmland were damaged.\n\nStill, in spite of all those hardships, North Vietnam retained remarkable capacity to train and outfit thousands of its troops.;;;X
EVT_8228198_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228199_NAME;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;South Vietnamese war economy;;;X
EVT_8228199_DESC;"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";"When the North and South were divided politically in 1954, they also adopted different economic ideologies, one communist and one capitalist. The economy in the South between became increasingly dependent on foreign aid. The United States, the foremost donor, financed the development of the military and the construction of roads, bridges, airfields and ports; supported the currency; and met the large deficit in the balance of payments. Destruction attributed to the Second Indochina War was considerable. Hanoi claimed that in the South, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed, 100,000 square kilometres of farmland and 50,000 square kilometres of forest lands were devastated, and 1.5 million cattle were killed.\n\nStill, in spite of all damage done by war, South Vietnam managed to run its economy until the final days of Vietnam War.";;;X
EVT_8228199_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8228200_NAME;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;;;X
EVT_8228200_DESC;The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';;;X
EVT_8228200_A;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;Wonderful idea;;;X
EVT_8228200_B;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;We'll stay within our borders;;;X
EVT_8228201_NAME;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;Ho Chi Minh trail;;;X
EVT_8228201_DESC;The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from North Vietnam to South Vietnam through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to Vietcong and the People's Army of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War. It was named by the Americans for North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh. Although the trail was mostly in Laos, the communists called it the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, after the Vietnamese name for the Annamite Range mountains in central Vietnam. According to the United States National Security Agency's official history of the war, the Trail system was 'one of the great achievements of military engineering of the 20th century.';;;X
EVT_8228201_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8229000_NAME;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;;;X
EVT_8229000_DESC;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas. In 1956, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai stated that he had no claims over Indian controlled territory.\n\nWhen the Chinese People's Liberation Army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Mao Zedong, was enraged and asked the Xinhua News Agency to produce reports on Indian expansionists operating in Tibet.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory. In 1960, Zhou Enlai unofficially suggested that India drop its claims to Aksai Chin in return for a Chinese withdrawal of claims over NEFA.;;;X
EVT_8229000_A;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;;;X
EVT_8229000_B;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;;;X
EVT_8229001_NAME;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;;;X
EVT_8229001_DESC;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;;;X
EVT_8229001_A;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;;;X
EVT_8229001_B;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;;;X
EVT_8229002_NAME;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;;;X
EVT_8229002_DESC;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;;;X
EVT_8229002_A;Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);;;X
EVT_8229002_B;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8229003_NAME;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;;;X
EVT_8229003_DESC;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;;;X
EVT_8229003_A;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;;;X
EVT_8229003_B;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8229010_NAME;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;;;X
EVT_8229010_DESC;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;;;X
EVT_8229010_A;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;;;X
EVT_8229010_B;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;;;X
EVT_8229011_NAME;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;Zhou Enlai's letter to Nehru;;;X
EVT_8229011_DESC;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Zhou ordered the troops to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. Zhou sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a letter by Nehru to Zhou once again rejected his proposal.;;;X
EVT_8229011_A;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;;;X
EVT_8229011_B;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;;;X
EVT_8229020_NAME;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229020_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;;;X
EVT_8229020_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229020_B;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;;;X
EVT_8229021_NAME;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229021_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;;;X
EVT_8229021_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229021_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229022_NAME;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229022_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;;;X
EVT_8229022_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229022_B;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;;;X
EVT_8229023_NAME;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229023_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;;;X
EVT_8229023_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229023_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229030_NAME;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229030_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;;;X
EVT_8229030_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229030_B;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;;;X
EVT_8229031_NAME;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229031_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;;;X
EVT_8229031_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229031_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229032_NAME;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229032_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;;;X
EVT_8229032_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229032_B;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;;;X
EVT_8229033_NAME;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229033_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;;;X
EVT_8229033_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229033_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229034_NAME;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;;;X
EVT_8229034_DESC;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;;;X
EVT_8229034_A;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;;;X
EVT_8229034_B;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;;;X
EVT_8229035_NAME;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;;;X
EVT_8229035_DESC;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet in 1959, the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;;;X
EVT_8229035_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8229100_NAME;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;Chinese claims in Himalayas;;;X
EVT_8229100_DESC;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;The 1940s saw huge change in South Asia with the Partition of India in 1947, and the stabilization of situation in the Republic of China. One of the most basic policies for the new Indian government was that of maintaining cordial relations with China, reviving its ancient friendly ties.\n\nAt the time, Chinese officials issued no condemnation of Nehru's territorial claims in Himalayas.\n\nWhen the Chinese army annexed Tibet, the Chinese extended their influence by building a road and placing border posts in Aksai Chin. Relations suffered again a major setback when Nehru accommodated the 14th Dalai Lama, who fled Lhasa after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.\n\nSoon, China's maps showed both the North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin to be Chinese territory.;;;X
EVT_8229100_A;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;Put forward those claims;;;X
EVT_8229100_B;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;Drop the case;;;X
EVT_8229101_NAME;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;India initiates Forward Policy;;;X
EVT_8229101_DESC;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;In 1959, after China made it clear that both Himalayan regions, North East Frontier Area (NEFA) and Aksai Chin, are claimed as their property, India started sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. The aim of this policy was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops to interdict their supplies, forcing them north of the disputed line. There were eventually 60 such outposts, including 43 north of the McMahon Line, to which India claimed sovereignty. China viewed this as further confirmation of Indian expansionist plans directed towards Tibet. According to the Indian official history, implementation of the Forward Policy was intended to provide evidence of Indian occupation in the previously unoccupied region through which Chinese troops had been patrolling.\n\nAt first the Chinese army simply withdrew, but eventually Chinese forces began to counter-encircle the Indian positions which clearly encroached into the north of McMahon Line. This led to a tit-for-tat Indian reaction, with each force attempting to outmanoeuver the other. However, despite the escalating nature of the dispute, the two forces withheld from engaging each other directly.;;;X
EVT_8229101_A;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;Initiate the policy;;;X
EVT_8229101_B;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;Withdraw from those areas;;;X
EVT_8229102_NAME;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;;;X
EVT_8229102_DESC;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;;;X
EVT_8229102_A;Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);Hold the line! (very high risk of war with China);;;X
EVT_8229102_B;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8229103_NAME;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;Confrontation at Thag La;;;X
EVT_8229103_DESC;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;In June 1962, Indian forces established an outpost at Dhola, on the southern slopes of the Thag La Ridge. Dhola lay north of the demarcation line but south of the ridges along which India interpreted as theirs. In August, China issued diplomatic protests and began occupying positions at the top of Thag La. Nehru said to the media that the Indian Army had instructions to 'free our territory' and the troops had been given discretion to use force.\n\nSoon, Chinese opened fire on Indian patrol, about 4,900 m above sea level. The first attack was pushed back but the second resulted in Indian retreat, both bringing heavy casualties.\n\nThis attack had grave implications for India and Nehru tried to solve the issue, but by 18 October, it was clear that the Chinese were preparing for an attack on India, with massive troop buildups on the border. A long line of mules and porters had also been observed supporting the buildup and reinforcement of positions south of the Thag La Ridge.;;;X
EVT_8229103_A;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;This means war!;;;X
EVT_8229103_B;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8229110_NAME;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;;;X
EVT_8229110_DESC;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.;;;X
EVT_8229110_A;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;Send a letter;;;X
EVT_8229110_B;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;We'll not settle this early;;;X
EVT_8229111_NAME;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;Chinese letter to Nehru;;;X
EVT_8229111_DESC;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;Soon after the beginning of hostilities the Chinese army had entered territory previously administered by India to give the PRC a diplomatically strong position over India. The majority of Chinese forces had advanced sixteen kilometres south of the control line prior to the conflict. Four days of fighting were followed by a three-week lull. Chinese troops were ordered to stop advancing as he attempted to negotiate with Nehru. The Indian forces had retreated into more heavily fortified positions which would be difficult to assault. The Chinese sent Nehru a letter, proposing a negotiated settlement of the boundary and creating a buffer zone around lines of actual control, with Aksai Chin changing its ownership to China.\n\nNehru's reply expressed interest in the restoration of peace but required return to the original boundaries and the creation of a larger immediate buffer zone. The Indian parliament announced a national emergency and passed a resolution which stated their intent to 'drive out the aggressors from the sacred soil of India'. The United States and the United Kingdom supported India's response, and a reply letter once again rejected his proposal.;;;X
EVT_8229111_A;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;We can do better;;;X
EVT_8229111_B;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;It's enough;;;X
EVT_8229120_NAME;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229120_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, pushing Indian forces from mountain ridges, away from disputed areas and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict.;;;X
EVT_8229120_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229120_B;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;Push further south;;;X
EVT_8229121_NAME;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229121_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nThe Chinese achieved their initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all the previously disputed areas and agree to a thin buffer zone. If we decide to fight on, we can push our frontier even further south.;;;X
EVT_8229121_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229121_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229122_NAME;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;Tactical victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229122_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nWe now achieved our initial goal, stopping Chinese forces at our far-lying outposts and even harrassing their troops deep inside Tibetan plateaus, and can now unilaterally announce our victory in this limited conflict. If we decide to fight on, we can bring Tibetan cause to the light, helping this region, so freshly subdued, to break free from China once again.;;;X
EVT_8229122_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229122_B;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;Push further north;;;X
EVT_8229123_NAME;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;Tactical defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229123_DESC;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;The Sino-Indian War was a war between China and India that occurred in 1962. A disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war, but other issues played a role. There had been a series of violent border incidents after the Tibetan uprising. The war was notable for the harsh conditions under which much of the fighting took place, entailling large-scale combat at altitudes of over 4,250 metres. The Sino-Indian War was also noted for the non-deployment of the navy or air force by either the Chinese or Indian side.\n\nIndia achieved its initial goals by pushing us out of disputed areas, far behind the demarcation line and now claimed end of hostilities. We have to give up all our claims and accept the Indian version of country boundaries in Himalayas.;;;X
EVT_8229123_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229123_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229130_NAME;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229130_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Indian territory and their biggest cities became endangered. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of attaining a buffer zone before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;;;X
EVT_8229130_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229130_B;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;;;X
EVT_8229131_NAME;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229131_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Chinese managed a deep thrust into our territory and our biggest cities became endangered. We have to accept that a wide buffer zone for Chinese claims in Himalayan region will be maintained and we must live with knowledge that our army proved to be inferior to our neighbors.;;;X
EVT_8229131_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229131_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229132_NAME;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;Total victory in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229132_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now we managed a deep thrust into Chinese territory and most of Tibet is under our control. It is the last moment we can claim our gains as means of bringing balance to the region and reinstating Dalai Lama as the leader of independent Tibet, before this conflict becomes a total war. Shall we stop now before it is too late?;;;X
EVT_8229132_A;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;It's enough for us, announce end of war;;;X
EVT_8229132_B;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;The war goes total!!;;;X
EVT_8229133_NAME;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;Total defeat in Sino-Indian War;;;X
EVT_8229133_DESC;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;The Sino-Indian War dragged on and exceeded what was initially a limited border conflict. Now Indians managed a deep thrust into our territory and most of Tibet is under their control. We have to accept that Dalai Lama is coming back from India to Lhasa to preside over Tibet, with our factual and nominal sovereignty over his lands weaker than they ever had been.;;;X
EVT_8229133_A;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;OK and revoke our claims;;;X
EVT_8229133_B;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;We may reconquer it one day;;;X
EVT_8229134_NAME;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;Tibet can be free again;;;X
EVT_8229134_DESC;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, we can invite Dalai Lama back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;;;X
EVT_8229134_A;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;Set Tibet free!;;;X
EVT_8229134_B;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;Continue military occupation;;;X
EVT_8229135_NAME;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;Tibet is free again;;;X
EVT_8229135_DESC;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;Following the Lhasa uprising and the Dalai Lama's flight from Tibet the government of India accepted the Tibetan refugees. India designated land for the refugees in the mountainous region of Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile set up their residence and headquarters. Contrary to initial fears, the Chinese did not manage to gain strong foothold in Tibet and a border conflict with India drove them away from the region. Now, with this area under our occupation, Dalai Lama comes back to rule his mountaineous demesne.;;;X
EVT_8229135_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230001_NAME;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;;;X
EVT_8230001_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government. In the civil war, weakened local troops was one factor that helped the communists. We should carefully weigh our short and long term goals when deciding how to use them in the current war. We could send them to hold the line against the Japanese to buy time for our professional army to mobilize. Doing so will greatly weaken warlord powers, but will show we are taking the Japanese threat seriously. Or, we can leave them where they are to maintain stability, although this will likely anger our allies. Lastly, we can attempt to integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army, but doing so will take some time.;;;X
EVT_8230001_A;They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);They will hold the line in the riskiest tasks. (Historical);;;X
EVT_8230001_B;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;Keep them where they are;;;X
EVT_8230001_C;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;Integrate them into the National Revolutionary Army;;;X
EVT_8230011_NAME;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;;;X
EVT_8230011_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230011_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230012_NAME;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;;;X
EVT_8230012_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230012_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230013_NAME;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;;;X
EVT_8230013_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230013_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230014_NAME;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;;;X
EVT_8230014_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230014_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230021_NAME;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;The Difangjun for Yunnan;;;X
EVT_8230021_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230021_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230022_NAME;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;The Difangjun for San Ma;;;X
EVT_8230022_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230022_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230023_NAME;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;The Difangjun for Shanxi;;;X
EVT_8230023_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230023_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230024_NAME;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;The Difangjun for Sinkiang;;;X
EVT_8230024_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.;;;X
EVT_8230024_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230030_NAME;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;The Difangjun;;;X
EVT_8230030_DESC;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;Difangjun, or local troops, were often private armies of local warlords or wealthy landlords. While warlordism was significantly curtailed in the 30s and almost all military forces flew the KMT banner, many were only nominally so. Still, they were an important asset as their interests were often in direct opposition to that of the communists. Local troops maintained a semblance of central order in the largely communist sympathetic countryside. Difangjun were often given the harshest tasks in the Second Sino-Japanese War, partly in order to weaken their influence and strengthen the central army, partly because some leaders over reported their unit strengths to gain from non-existent soldier's wages paid by the central government.\n\nAfter some period of instability after leaving those troops in the back lines, the situation now returns to normal and having our rearguard secured pays off.;;;X
EVT_8230030_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8230031_NAME;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;Leadership struggle;;;X
EVT_8230031_DESC;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;During years of the Second Sino-Japanese War and later, areas nominally ruled by Kuomintang were in big part divided between various warlords and local strongmen. Their destabilizing influence marred general efficiency of Chiang Kai-shek's regime and was one of biggest problems to solve.;;;X
EVT_8230031_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231000_NAME;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;;;X
EVT_8231000_DESC;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;;;X
EVT_8231000_A;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;;;X
EVT_8231000_B;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;;;X
EVT_8231001_NAME;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;;;X
EVT_8231001_DESC;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;;;X
EVT_8231001_A;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;;;X
EVT_8231001_B;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;;;X
EVT_8231002_NAME;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;;;X
EVT_8231002_DESC;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;;;X
EVT_8231002_A;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;;;X
EVT_8231002_B;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;;;X
EVT_8231003_NAME;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;;;X
EVT_8231003_DESC;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;;;X
EVT_8231003_A;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;;;X
EVT_8231003_B;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;;;X
EVT_8231004_NAME;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;Accept German refugees;;;X
EVT_8231004_DESC;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;When the World War II was coming to its end, it became unsettlingly clear for various officials and important persons in the Third Reich apparatus that their time of influence and power is coming to an end. Victorious powers had varying approaches to the former members of the Nazi establishment but their capture and identification often meant long incarceration, toil of public works or death by means of execution. This led to creation of various means of evacuation of Nazi supporters to countries around the whole world, having sufficiently right-wing cabinets at helm.\n\nFor example, ODESSA (Organisation der ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen) is believed to have been an international Nazi network set up towards the end of World War II by a group of SS officers. The purpose of the ODESSA was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, later known as ratlines, to allow SS members to avoid their capture and prosecution for war crimes. Most of those fleeing out of Germany and Austria were helped to South America and the Middle East. Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia.\n\nAcceptance of such refugees in our country may be morally doubtful but shouldn't we accept those people that could bring us their expertise and resourcefulness?;;;X
EVT_8231004_A;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;Accept;;;X
EVT_8231004_B;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;Reject;;;X
EVT_8231010_NAME;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;;;X
EVT_8231010_DESC;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;;;X
EVT_8231010_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231011_NAME;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;Cesare Pallavicino;;;X
EVT_8231011_DESC;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;Cesare Pallavicino was an Italian aeronautical engineer, heading the design department at Caproni from 1935 to 1941. He designed several important Italian aircraft of Breda and Caproni type. In 1946, shortly before emigrating to Argentina, he worked on the design of the Lambretta the most famous Italian scooter along with Piaggio Vespa.;;;X
EVT_8231011_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231012_NAME;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;Ronald Richter;;;X
EVT_8231012_DESC;"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";"Ronald Richter (1909–1991) was an Austrian, later Argentine, scientist who became famous in connection with the Huemul Project and the National Atomic Energy Commission. Following the end of World War II, his only known jobs were a six-month stint working on explosives and a few commercial contracts. He met an aeronautical engineer Kurt Tank in London; Tank later later emigrated to Argentina, hired by Peron's government under the cover name of Pedro Matthies. Recommended to Perón by Kurt Tank, Richter moved to Argentina and was received, by the German industrialist August Siebrecht, ex-Nazi spy. Tank was interested in Richter's proposal to use nuclear energy for aircraft propulsion.\n\nIn 1949 Peron hired Richter who had convinced Peron that he could produce controlled nuclear fusion using cheap materials in a process that could supply cheap energy in enormous quantities, a program that eventually became known as the Huemul Project. Peron believed that any project undertaken by a German scientist was bound to be successful. Due to his political disagreements with true Argentine scientists of the stature of, for example, Enrique Gaviola, Peron gave Richter an effective blank check. The total cost of the project was estimated at 300 million USD (2003 value). In 1951 Richter announced that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions; a claim that was later proven false.\n\nAfter it became evident that Richter's project was spurious, Peron appointed a technical committee which included José Balseiro, a former faculty member at the La Plata Institute of Physics. The committee reported their findings to Peron in September 1952 and soon after that project was terminated. After the termination of the Huemul Project in 1952, Richter appears to have spent periods of time abroad including some time in Libya. Eventually he returned to Argentina, where he died in 1991.";;;X
EVT_8231012_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231013_NAME;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;;;X
EVT_8231013_DESC;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;;;X
EVT_8231013_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231014_NAME;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;Hans-Ulrich Rudel;;;X
EVT_8231014_DESC;"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";"Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II. The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, Rudel was one of only 27 military men to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds, and the only person to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), Germany's highest military decoration. Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, 4 armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.\n\nAfter the war, Rudel for a time moved to South America where he became a close friend and confidante of the Argentinian president Juan Peron, and Paraguay's dictator and Third Reich admirer Alfredo Stroessner. Although missing one leg, he remained an active sportsman, playing tennis, skiing, and even climbing the highest peak in the Americas, Aconcagua.\n\nRudel returned to West Germany in 1953 and became a leading member of the nationalist political party, the German Reich Party (Deutsche Reichspartei). Prior to his return to Germany, he published a war diary entitled Trotzdem (""Nevertheless"" or ""In Spite of Everything"") in Buenos Aires in November 1949 in which he supported National Socialist policy. He became a successful businessman in post-war Germany and his input was even used during the development of the A-10 ground attack aircraft. Rudel died in Rosenheim in 1982.";;;X
EVT_8231014_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231015_NAME;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;Reimar Horten;;;X
EVT_8231015_DESC;"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";"Reimar Horten (born 12 March 1915; died 14 August 1993 in Villa General Belgrano, Argentina), was along his brother Walter, a German aircraft pilot and enthusiast. Although he had little, if any, formal training in aeronautics or related fields, he co-designed some of the most advanced aircraft of the 1940s, including the world's first jet-powered flying wing, the Horten Ho 229. Among other advanced Horten designs of the 1940s was the supersonic delta-wing H.X, designed as a hybrid turbojet/rocket fighter with a top speed of Mach 1.4, but tested only in glider form (as the Horten H.XIII). Its revolutionary stealth design included a special carbon layer that was able to reduce the radar range detection. The Horten brothers also worked on the Horten H.XVIII, an intercontinental bomber that was part of the Amerika Bomber project.\n\nAs the war ended, Reimar Horten emigrated to Argentina after failed negotiations with the United Kingdom and China, where he continued designing and building gliders, one experimental supersonic delta-wing aircraft and one twin-engined flying wing transport called the ""Naranjero"" for its intended use of carrying oranges for export but it was unsuccessful commercially.";;;X
EVT_8231015_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231016_NAME;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;Hans Guido Mutke;;;X
EVT_8231016_DESC;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;Hans Guido Mutke (25 March 1921 – 8 April 2004) was a fighter pilot for the German Luftwaffe during World War II known for making a controversial claim that he broke the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in an Me 262. After learning about the supersonic flights of Chuck Yeager in 1947 he attributed various physical phenomena of his high-altitude descent to the effects of supersonic flight and claim to have broken the sound barrier—years before Yeager did. Mutke never claimed he was the first person to break the sound barrier, but instead argued that his flight was merely proof that the Me 262 was capable of reaching and exceeding Mach 1 and that therefore other German fighter pilots may have done so even before him.\n\nAfter the war, Mutke moved to Argentina, where he flew Douglas DC-3s for several airlines. He later returned to Germany, where he completed medical training. He died in Munich in 2004, during a heart valve operation. He donated his bodily remains to the anatomist Gunther von Hagens.;;;X
EVT_8231016_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231020_NAME;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;Émile Dewoitine;;;X
EVT_8231020_DESC;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;Émile Dewoitine (September 26, 1892 – July 5, 1979) was a French aviation industrialist. After the creation of the Vichy government, Dewoitine briefly tried to start a business in the United States. This caused him to be tried for treason under the Vichy government. Dewoitine went back to work with SIPA which, after an agreement between the Vichy government and German authorities, was manufacturing trainer aircraft intended for the Luftwaffe, including a derivative of the Arado Ar 96, which would later be known as the SIPA S.10.\n\nFacing charges of collaborationism after the liberation of France, Dewoitine moved to Spain, where he developed a derivative of the D.520 with Hispano Aviación. He later went to Argentina, where he worked for the Industria Aeronautica Militar, developing the Pulqui I, the first South American jet plane, and Colibri, trained aircraft. In France, Dewoitine was condemned in absentia to a 20 year forced labour term in 1948. At the end of this career, he resided in Switzerland. Once his crimes were prescribed, he returned to France and finished his life in Toulouse.;;;X
EVT_8231020_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231021_NAME;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;;;X
EVT_8231021_DESC;"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";;;X
EVT_8231021_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231030_NAME;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;Kurt Tank;;;X
EVT_8231030_DESC;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;Kurt Tank (February 24, 1898 – June 5, 1983) was a German aeronautical engineer and test pilot who led the design department at Focke-Wulf from 1931 to 1945. He was responsible for the creation of several important Luftwaffe aircraft of World War II, including the Fw 190 fighter aircraft, the Ta 152 fighter-interceptor and the FW 200 Condor airliner.\n\nAfter the war Tank negotiated with the United Kingdom, the Nationalist government of China, and representatives of the Soviet Union and when the negotiations proved unsuccessful, accepted an offer from Argentina to work at its aerotechnical institute, the Instituto Aerotécnico in Cordoba under the name of (Prof. Dr.) Pedro Matthies. It is recorded that the British government decided not to offer him a contract on the grounds that he was too important, and they could not see how he could be integrated into an existing research project or design group.\n\nThe Instituto Aerotécnico later became Argentina's military aeroplane factory, the Fabrica Militar de Aviones. There, he designed the IAe Pulqui II based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 design that had reached mock-up stage by the end of the war.\n\nWhen President Juan Perón fell from power in 1955 Tank moved to India and finally joined Hindustan Aeronautics, where he designed the Hindustan Marut fighter-bomber, the first military aircraft constructed in India. Tank left Hindustan Aeronautics in 1967 and by the 1970s had returned to live in Berlin. He died in Munich in 1983.;;;X
EVT_8231030_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231040_NAME;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;Wilhelm Voss;;;X
EVT_8231040_DESC;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;Wilhelm Voss (1 June 1896 in Rostock - 1978) was an influential German businessman and SS member who held numerous positions in the economy in the Nazi Reich. He was a key executive in Rheinmetall-Borsig AG in Berlin, Czech Škoda Work , which had been incorporated into the Hermann-Göring-Werke, Austrian Simmering-Graz-Pauker AG as well as Italian OMNIPOL SA, to name a few companies.\n\nAfter the Second World War he was interned for eleven months in the Czech Republic before being released in 1946. In 1951 he left for Egypt where he worked for General Naguib, the first president of Egypt, as the chief adviser in the Egyptian Ministry of War. He took a job as director of the Egyptian missile program and worked there with a complete staff of specialists. Voss lost influence after Naguib was deposed by Nasser in February 1954. He returned to West Germany in the summer in 1956.;;;X
EVT_8231040_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231041_NAME;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;Rolf Engel;;;X
EVT_8231041_DESC;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;Rolf Engel (August 10 1912 in Menz - 23 November 1993 in Munich) was a German rocket engineer, aircraft manufacturer and a member of SS. Together with von Braun and other rocket pioneers he worked from 1930 on the rocket launching site founded by Rudolf Nebel in Berlin-Reinickendorf, exploring basics of rocketry. After that he was involved with the rocket engineer John Winkler in building the first European liquid fuel rocket, developed in February 1931, and finally sent to the Army Research Center Peenemünde.\n\nIn 1945 he was made ??a prisoner of war in France and briefly engaged in the development of the Gabriel missile design. After a brief stay in Germany, he moved to Egypt where he was appointed head of an Egyptian missile program in the 1950s, failing there due to lack of proper components.;;;X
EVT_8231041_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231042_NAME;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher;;;X
EVT_8231042_DESC;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;Wilhelm Fahrmbacher (19 September 1888 – 27 April 1970) was a highly decorated General der Artillerie in the Wehrmacht during World War II who commanded several corps. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Wilhelm Fahrmbacher was captured by American troops in 1945, he was handed over to French forces and held until 1950. After his release he served as a military advisor in Egypt.;;;X
EVT_8231042_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231043_NAME;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;Ferdinand Brandner;;;X
EVT_8231043_DESC;"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";"Dr. Ferdinand Brandner (November 17, 1903 – December 20, 1986) was an Austrian aerospace designer, a member of SS in wartime Germany,  working at the Junkers-Motorenbau factory in Dessau designing aircraft engines, and eventually assisted with the war effort for Germany. In the spring of 1945, Brandner was captured by the Red Army trying to flee to Prague near the end of World War II. He was flown to Moscow as part of Operation Ossawakim, where he was assigned to work with Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov and was responsible for the most powerful turboprop engine ever built, the Kuznetsov NK-12.\n\nBrandner returned to Austria in 1953 where he began working at Maschinenfabrik Andritz AG as the technical director. In 1959, Brandner left Europe for Egypt, where the government was recruiting German World War II scientists for theiraerospace program. His project was codenamed ""135"", with the duty of designing a jet engine for a fighter already constructed, finally resulting in the design of the Brandner E-300 jet engine that was to power the Helwan HA-300 jet fighter being produced by the Egyptian government.";;;X
EVT_8231043_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231044_NAME;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;Willy Messerschmitt;;;X
EVT_8231044_DESC;"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";"Wilhelm Emil ""Willy"" Messerschmitt (June 26, 1898 – September 15, 1978) was a German aircraft designer and manufacturer. Probably Messerschmitt's single most important design was the Messerschmitt Bf 109, designed in 1934 with the collaboration of Walter Rethel. The Bf 109 became the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe as Germany re-armed prior to World War II. To this day, it remains the most-produced fighter in history, with some 35,000 built. Another Messerschmitt aircraft, purpose-built for record setting, finally designated as Messerschmitt Me 209, broke the absolute world air-speed record and held the world speed record for propeller-driven aircraft until 1969.\n\nFollowing World War II, Messerschmitt was tried by a denazification court for using slave labor, and in 1948 was convicted. After two years in prison, he was released and resumed his position as head of his company. Since Germany was forbidden to manufacture aircraft until 1955, he turned his company to manufacturing prefabricated buildings, sewing machines, and small cars. Exporting his talents, he designed the Hispano HA-200 jet trainer for Hispano Aviación in Spain in 1952 before eventually being allowed to return to aircraft manufacturing in Germany to licence-produce the Fiat G91 and then Lockheed F-104 Starfighter for the West German Luftwaffe. He designed the later Helwan HA-300, a light supersonic interceptor, for the Egyptian air forces.";;;X
EVT_8231044_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231050_NAME;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;Henrich Focke;;;X
EVT_8231050_DESC;"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";"Henrich Focke (8 October 1890 – 25 February 1979) was a German aviation pioneer from Bremen. He was a co-founder of the Focke-Wulf company, responsible for designing the world's first practical helicopter, the Focke-Wulf Fw 61, which first flew on 26 June 1936.\n\nOn 1 September 1945 Focke signed a contract with the French company SNCASE and assisted in development of their SE-3000 passenger helicopter, which was based on the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 'Drache' and which first flew in 1948. In 1952, Focke and other members of his former design team were employed by Brazil's Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA), at the time the air force's technical center, to develop a Convertiplane, the ""Convertiplano"", which drew heavily on Focke's wartime work on the Fa 269. The Convertiplano was built using the fuselage and wings of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk 15, which was believed to be one delivered to Argentina as a sales example. Some 40 workers and US$8 million were devoted to the project, and more than 300 takeoffs were achieved. While working at the CTA Focke also developed the BF-1 Beija-Flor (hummingbird) two-seater light helicopter from 1954, which made its first flight on 22 January 1959.\n\nFocke returned permanently to Germany in 1956 and began developing a three-seater helicopter named the ""Kolibri"" (""hummingbird"") at the Borgward company in Bremen, with its first flight taking place in 1958. While working at Borgward Focke set up a wind tunnel in a disused hangar in central Bremen; this wind tunnel was rediscovered in 1997 and is today the centerpiece of a museum devoted to him. Focke died in Bremen on 25 February 1979.";;;X
EVT_8231050_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8231100_NAME;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;Operation Paperclip;;;X
EVT_8231100_DESC;"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";"Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II. It was conducted in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War, one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR, the UK, and (divided) Germany itself. To circumvent President Truman's anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Paperclip, the project's operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists' new political personae to their 'US Government Scientist' JIOA personnel files.\n\nAmong German scientists involved in the project were: Rudi Beichel, Magnus von Braun, Wernher von Braun, Walter Dornberger, Werner Dahm, Konrad Dannenberg, Kurt H. Debus, Ernst R. G. Eckert, Krafft Arnold Ehricke, Otto Hirschler, Hermann H. Kurzweg, Fritz Mueller, Gerhard Reisig, Georg Rickhey, Arthur Rudolph, Ernst Stuhlinger, Werner Rosinski, Eberhard Rees, Ludwig Roth, Georg von Tiesenhausen, and Bernhard Tessmann (rocketry); Siegfried Knemeyer, Alexander Martin Lippisch, Hans von Ohain, Hans Multhopp, Kurt Tank (aeronautics); Walter Schreiber, Kurt Blome, Hubertus Strughold, Hans Antmann (medicine); Hans K. Ziegler, Kurt Lehovec, Hans Hollmann, Johannes Plendl, Heinz Schlicke (electronics); Reinhard Gehlen, Otto von Bolschwing (intelligence).";;;X
EVT_8231100_A;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;;;X
EVT_8231100_B;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;;;X
EVT_8231100_C;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;;;X
EVT_8231101_NAME;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;Operation Osoaviakhim;;;X
EVT_8231101_DESC;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;Operation Osoaviakhim was a Soviet operation which took place on 22 October 1946, with NKVD and Soviet army units recruiting thousands of military-related technical specialists from the Soviet occupation zone of post-World-War-II Germany for employment in the Soviet Union. Much related equipment was moved too, the aim being to virtually transplant research and production centres, such as the relocated V-2 rocket centre at Mittelwerk Nordhausen, from Germany to the Soviet Union. The codename 'Osoaviakhim' was the acronym of a Soviet paramilitary organisation, later renamed DOSAAF. The operation was commanded by NKVD deputy Colonel General Serov, outside the control of the local Soviet Military Administration (which in a few cases, such as Carl Zeiss AG, tried to prevent the removal of specialists and equipment of vital economic significance for the occupation zone). The operation took 92 trains to transport the specialists and their families (perhaps 10,000-15,000 people in all) along with their furniture and belongings. Whilst those removed were offered generous contracts (the specialists were told that they would be paid on the same terms as equivalent Soviet workers, which in post-war Germany was seen as a gain), there was little doubt that failing to sign them was not a realistic option.\n\nThe major reason for the operation was the Soviet fear of being condemned for noncompliance with Allied Control Council agreements on the liquidation of German military installations. New agreements were expected on four-power inspections of remaining German war potential, which the Soviets supported, being concerned about developments in the western zones.;;;X
EVT_8231101_A;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;;;X
EVT_8231101_B;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;;;X
EVT_8231101_C;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;We manage to capture few scientists;;;X
EVT_8231102_NAME;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;Operation Backfire;;;X
EVT_8231102_DESC;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;Operation Backfire was a military scientific operation during and after the Second World War, which was performed mainly by British staff. It was part of the Allies' scramble to acquire German technology.\n\nFor this operation, three or possibly four V-2 rockets were launched during October 1945 from a launch pad near Cuxhaven in Germany, in order to demonstrate the weapon to Allied personnel. The Americans had already taken away most of the V2 rocket technology from the German underground Mittelwerk factory at the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen. Before the Soviets took control of that area, the British were given the opportunity to gather material. They were able to assemble parts sufficient to build eight V2 rockets. Some parts were still missing and there was a search throughout Germany. Some 400 railway cars and 70 Lancaster flights were used to bring the quarter-of-a-million parts and 60 specialized vehicles to Cuxhaven, the most elusive parts being batteries to operate the guidance gyros. The US supplied some tail assemblies from those that they had taken. Many of the rockets and the hydrogen peroxide fuel used in the operation was provided by T-Force, a secretive British Army unit that had, in spring and summer 1945, searched for German military technology and scientists.\n\nDuring and after the launches, the British attempted to recruit German personnel, even those transferred from US custody and due to be returned, to assist with their own missile programme.;;;X
EVT_8231102_A;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;We manage to capture most of scientists;;;X
EVT_8231102_B;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;We manage to capture some scientists;;;X
EVT_8310000_NAME;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;;;X
EVT_8310000_DESC;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. The Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, capturing German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;;;X
EVT_8310000_A;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;;;X
EVT_8310001_NAME;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;;;X
EVT_8310001_DESC;"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";;;X
EVT_8310001_A;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;;;X
EVT_8310002_NAME;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;;;X
EVT_8310002_DESC;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. From Moscow to New York, people cheered. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.\n\nIn the United States, President Harry Truman, who turned 61 that day, dedicated the victory to the memory of his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a month earlier, on 12 April. Flags remained at half-mast for the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. Truman said of dedicating the victory to Roosevelt's memory and keeping the flags at half-staff that his only wish was 'that Franklin D. Roosevelt had lived to witness this day.' Massive celebrations also took place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and especially in New York City's Times Square.\n\nTo commemorate the Soviet victory in the war, the ceremonial Moscow Victory Parade was held in the Soviet capital on 24 June 1945. Marshals Georgy Zhukov, who had formally accepted the German surrender to the Soviet Union, and Konstantin Rokossovsky, rode through the parade ground on white and black stallions, respectively. Displays of the Red Army vehicles were some of the focal points of the ceremony. One of the most famous moments at the end of the troops parade took place when various Red Army soldiers carried the banners of Nazi Germany and threw them down next to the mausoleum. One of the standards that was tossed down belonged to the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, Hitler's personal bodyguard raised to divisional size.;;;X
EVT_8310002_A;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;;;X
EVT_8310004_NAME;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;Suicide of Hitler;;;X
EVT_8310004_DESC;"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";"On 1 May, the German radio, interrupted its normal program to announce that an important broadcast would soon be made. Then followed an announcement by Großadmiral Karl Dönitz, appointed as Hitler's successor in Hitler's will, in which Dönitz called upon the German people to mourn their Führer, who died the death of a hero in the capital of the Reich. Dönitz stated that his only aim for continuing the war was to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. Dönitz was not to become Führer (a post which Hitler abolished in his will), but rather President (Reichspräsident).\n\nThe speech by Winston Churchill announcing victory to the British people is evidence of de facto recognition of the Flensburg Government's authority, at least up to the moment of the unconditional surrender, since Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by ""Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State"". However, after the unconditional surrender, the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies and its members were soon arrested.";;;X
EVT_8310004_A;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;Hitler is dead!;;;X
EVT_8310010_NAME;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;;;X
EVT_8310010_DESC;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;;;X
EVT_8310010_A;'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';;;X
EVT_8310011_NAME;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;;;X
EVT_8310011_DESC;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;;;X
EVT_8310011_A;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;;;X
EVT_8310020_NAME;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;;;X
EVT_8310020_DESC;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;;;X
EVT_8310020_A;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;;;X
EVT_8310101_NAME;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;;;X
EVT_8310101_DESC;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. Then both superpowers will give independence to the European countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;;;X
EVT_8310101_A;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;;;X
EVT_8310101_B;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;;;X
EVT_8310110_NAME;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;;;X
EVT_8310110_DESC;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Brussels.;;;X
EVT_8310110_A;"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Brussels will be red; let's remain where we are.";;;X
EVT_8310110_B;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;;;X
EVT_8310111_NAME;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;;;X
EVT_8310111_DESC;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through the capital. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to Amsterdam.;;;X
EVT_8310111_A;"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";"Amsterdam will be red; let's remain where we are.";;;X
EVT_8310111_B;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;Maybe it won't be so bad as it seems.;;;X
EVT_8310112_NAME;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;Is it victory?;;;X
EVT_8310112_DESC;"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";"De Gaulle during the war strongly denounced the French government's decision to seek armistice with the Nazis and set about building the Free French Forces from the soldiers and officers deployed outside France or who had fled France with him. On 18 June, de Gaulle delivered a famous radio address via the BBC Radio service. De Gaulle's Appeal of 18 June exhorted the French people not to be demoralised and to continue to resist the occupation of France and work against the collaborationist Vichy regime, which had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. Although the original speech could only be heard in a few parts of occupied France, de Gaulle's subsequent ones reached many parts of the territories under the Vichy regime, helping to rally the French resistance movement and earning him much popularity amongst the French people and soldiers. In Algiers in 1943, Eisenhower gave De Gaulle the assurance in person that a French force would liberate Paris and arranged that the army division of French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque would be transferred from North Africa to England to carry out that liberation. Eisenhower was impressed by the combativeness of units of the Free French Forces and 'grateful for the part they had played in mopping up the remnants of German resistance'; he also detected how strongly devoted many were to de Gaulle and how ready they were to accept him as the national leader.\n\nYet these promises did not materialize and the Western Allies could not make a landing successful enough to liberate any sizeable portion of France. The Soviet newsreel has just shown the Soviet soldiers that now march through our beloved Paris, hand in hand with the communist resistance members. With their army and intelligence in place, already setting up their new order, the communist forces will not let our government go back to the mainland.";;;X
EVT_8310112_A;All in vain;All in vain;All in vain;All in vain;All in vain;All in vain;All in vain;All in vain;;;X
EVT_8310112_B;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;Red but still standing as one;;;X
EVT_8310201_NAME;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;;;X
EVT_8310201_DESC;"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";;;X
EVT_8310201_A;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;;;X
EVT_8310202_NAME;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;;;X
EVT_8310202_DESC;"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";"Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.\n\nNonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies that he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. Winston Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace' address of 5 March 1946, at Westminster College, used the term 'iron curtain' in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe: 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an >>iron curtain<< has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.'";;;X
EVT_8310202_A;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;;;X
EVT_8310202_B;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;Unite Europe under the red banner!;;;X
EVT_8310203_NAME;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;;;X
EVT_8310203_DESC;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;;;X
EVT_8310203_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8310204_NAME;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;Shape of Poland;;;X
EVT_8310204_DESC;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;Initially the Polish government in exile envisioned territorial changes after the war which would incorporate East Prussia, Danzig (Gdansk), Oppeln (Opole) Silesian region into post-war Poland.\n\nIt was the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who at the Tehran Conference in late 1943 brought up the subject of Poland's western frontier and its extension to the Oder River. In February 1945, American and British officials met in Yalta and agreed on the basics on Poland's future borders, although for many months the matter of ownership of Western Silesia and Stettin was a bone of contention between the Western Allies and Stalin. The eventual border settlement was a comparatively generous concession to Poland, transferring more territories that were originally claimed even if there were even more brave suggestions of including areas further west containing ethnic Slavic Sorbs who lived near Cottbus and Bautzen.\n\nNikita Khrushchev in his memoirs said: 'I had only one desire – that Poland's borders were moved as far west as possible.' Those territories were referred to as the Regained or Recovered Territories, a propaganda term based on the fact that they have been linked with Poland in distant, usually medieval, past.;;;X
EVT_8310204_A;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;Reward the Poles with Oder-Neisse border;;;X
EVT_8310204_B;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;OK but it's Eastern Neisse we speak about;;;X
EVT_8310204_C;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;Curb Polish ambitions in the West;;;X
EVT_8310204_D;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;Let them recreate Boleslaw the Brave's dream!;;;X
EVT_8310301_NAME;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;;;X
EVT_8310301_DESC;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;;;X
EVT_8310301_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8310302_NAME;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;;;X
EVT_8310302_DESC;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;;;X
EVT_8310302_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8310303_NAME;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;;;X
EVT_8310303_DESC;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;;;X
EVT_8310303_A;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;;;X
EVT_8310304_NAME;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;;;X
EVT_8310304_DESC;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;;;X
EVT_8310304_A;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;;;X
EVT_8310305_NAME;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;;;X
EVT_8310305_DESC;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;;;X
EVT_8310305_A;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;;;X
EVT_8310306_NAME;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;;;X
EVT_8310306_DESC;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;;;X
EVT_8310306_A;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;;;X
EVT_8310400_NAME;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;;;X
EVT_8310400_DESC;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;;;X
EVT_8310400_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8320000_NAME;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;Impending defeat;;;X
EVT_8320000_DESC;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;Historically, the Battle of Okinawa, codenamed Operation Iceberg, was fought on the Ryukyu Islands of Okinawa and was the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War of World War II. The 82-day-long battle lasted from early April until mid-June 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall). Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island while the 2nd Marine Division remained as an amphibious reserve and was never brought ashore. The invasion was supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.\n\nThe battle has been referred to as the 'Typhoon of Steel' which refers to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of kamikaze attacks from the Japanese defenders, and to the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide. For the Japanese, it was a sign that the enemy is close at gates of Home Islands and the defeat is nearing.;;;X
EVT_8320000_A;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;;;X
EVT_8320000_B;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;;;X
EVT_8320001_NAME;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;First atomic bomb strike;;;X
EVT_8320001_DESC;"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";"Historically, Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on 6 August, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternative targets. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field airbase on Tinian. Japanese early warning radar detected the approach of the American aircrafts but the number of planes coming in was very small and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as 'Little Boy', a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg of uranium-235 was released. Some 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured.\n\nAfterwards, military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours he saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. 'Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death', Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources.\n\nAfter the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, 'We may be grateful to Providence' that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had 'spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.' Truman then warned Japan: 'If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.' Nevertheless, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of Japan, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.";;;X
EVT_8320001_A;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;;;X
EVT_8320001_B;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;;;X
EVT_8320002_NAME;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;Second atomic bomb strike;;;X
EVT_8320002_DESC;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;Historically, responsibility for the timing of the second nuclear bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August against Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August. On the morning of 9 August 1945, the B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, carried Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target.\n\nBy the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70 percent cloud cover had obscured the city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, the weaponeer, Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth, decided that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.\n\nIn Nagasaki, when only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given. At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 6.4 kilograms of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.\n\nUntil August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to 'quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us.' He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration 'does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler.' On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.;;;X
EVT_8320002_A;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;;;X
EVT_8320002_B;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;;;X
EVT_8320003_NAME;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;Third atomic bomb strike;;;X
EVT_8320003_DESC;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;Mj. Gen. Leslie Groves, responsible for the military direction of the Manhattan Project, expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that 'the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.' On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, 'It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.'\n\nThere was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. 'The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.'\n\nTwo more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August, and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.;;;X
EVT_8320003_A;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;;;X
EVT_8320003_B;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;;;X
EVT_8320004_NAME;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;Operation Downfall;;;X
EVT_8320004_DESC;"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";"Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Ky?sh?, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kant? Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honsh?. Airbases on Ky?sh? captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.\n\nJapan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsug?, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Ky?sh?, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.\n\nRegardless of these estimates, the operation was carried out and a sizeable portion of the Home Islands are under enemy control. There is now little doubt that the war can be won and the Islands defended so does the further resistance serve any purpose?";;;X
EVT_8320004_A;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;Continue against all odds;;;X
EVT_8320004_B;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;Prepare to surrender;;;X
EVT_8320005_NAME;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;Annexation of Japan;;;X
EVT_8320005_DESC;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;Even when the pressure on the government of Japan to accept the inevitable and surrender, the Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito and the war council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.\n\nEven when the horrors of the war mounted, the Japanese were reluctant to agree to the terms of surrender and the total annexation of the Home Islands was necessary to bring the Japanese war machine to its knees.;;;X
EVT_8320005_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8320010_NAME;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;Operation Ketsugo;;;X
EVT_8320010_DESC;"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";"As the possibility of the Allied attack on Home Islands mounted, the Japanese had their own plans for defence. While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsug? ('Operation Codename Decisive'). The Japanese had secretly constructed an underground headquarters which could be used in the event of Allied invasion to shelter the Emperor and the Imperial General Staff.\n\nThe Japanese defense would have relied heavily on kamikaze planes. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Ky?sh?, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that reduced the US's radar advantage), they hoped to get one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a period of hours.\n\nEarly in the war (such as at Tarawa), the Japanese employed strong defenses on the beaches with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their forces in the most defensible terrain. For the defense of Ky?sh?, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometers inland from the shore: back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery but close enough that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging them.\n\nIn March 1945, there was only one combat division in Ky?sh?. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men. In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.";;;X
EVT_8320010_A;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;Make the islands our fortress;;;X
EVT_8320010_B;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;It's not necessary;;;X
EVT_8320011_NAME;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;Kyujo Incident;;;X
EVT_8320011_DESC;The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';The Kyujo Incident was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night before announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. \n\nLate on the night of August 12, 1945, young Major Kenji Hatanaka, along with other perpetrators spoke to War Minister Korechika Anami (the army minister and 'most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself'), and asked him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. All key generals were concerned about the possibility of a coup d'état to prevent the surrender. It was why General Torashiro Kawabe proposed that all senior officers present sign an agreement to carry out the emperor's order of surrender.\n\nAround 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. Originally, Hatanaka hoped that simply occupying the palace and showing the beginnings of a rebellion would inspire the rest of the Army to rise up against the move to surrender. This notion guided him through much of the last days and hours and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan.\n\nAt some time after 01:00, Hatanaka and his men surrounded the palace. Hatanaka went to the office of Lt. General Takeshi Mori to ask him to join the coup. The cooperation of Mori, as commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, was crucial. When Mori refused to side with Hatanaka, Hatanaka killed him, fearing Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Imperial Guards Division Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial Household Ministry, and 'protecting' the emperor.\n\nThe rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours fruitlessly searching for people responsible for recording the surrender and the recordings of the surrender speech themselves. Around 03:00, Hatanaka was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to stop him, and that he should give up. Just before 05:00, as his rebels continued their search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime to explain his actions but to no avail. Within an hour before the emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11:00, August 15, Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and shot himself. In Hatanaka's pocket was found his death poem: 'I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor.';;;X
EVT_8320011_A;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;The Army supports surrender;;;X
EVT_8320011_B;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;The Army is deeply inspired;;;X
EVT_8320030_NAME;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;Turning eye towards the East;;;X
EVT_8320030_DESC;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;At the Potsdam conference we vowed to help the Allies in their fight against Japan. This will not only shorten the war in the Far East but can bring us tangible benefits.;;;X
EVT_8320030_A;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;We will soon declare the war;;;X
EVT_8320030_B;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;Remain faithful to the agreement;;;X
EVT_8320031_NAME;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation;;;X
EVT_8320031_DESC;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;True to the agreement of Potsdam Conference we should enter the war with the Japanese and help the Western Allies crush the stubborn imperialistic regime, gaining ourselves a foothold in East Asia as well.;;;X
EVT_8320031_A;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;Let's attack!;;;X
EVT_8320031_B;We don't want to;We don't want to;We don't want to;We don't want to;We don't want to;We don't want to;We don't want to;We don't want to;;;X
EVT_8320032_NAME;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;Operation August Storm;;;X
EVT_8320032_DESC;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;Huge stockpiles of resources and amount of troops at hand allowed us to swiftly crush the opponent in Manchuria.;;;X
EVT_8320032_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8321000_NAME;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;Breakdown of Co-prosperity Sphere;;;X
EVT_8321000_DESC;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a concept created and promulgated during the Showa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It represented the desire to create a self-sufficient 'bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers'. In fact, the idea was embodied by different puppet regimes and occupational administration centres in the lands conquered by Japanese troops.\n\nIn the wake of Japanese surrender still sizeable portions of East Asia remained under their control, now effectively appearing in a vacuum of power. Many regions, like Northern Vietnam or Indonesia, managed to create their own nationalist anti-colonial governments before the major powers returned to previously owned lands which led to further struggles (like in Vietnam and Indonesia) but also spurred end of colonialism in South-East Asia.;;;X
EVT_8321000_A;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;The nations of South-East Asia break free;;;X
EVT_8321001_NAME;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;;;X
EVT_8321001_DESC;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. Some of these lands received their right to independence or autonomy soon, some like Indonesia had to fight for their freedom.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United States, as the representative of Western Allies, and Soviet Union, as the representative of Eastern Allies. China retains its conquered lands and has its own procedure of land distribution. Then both superpowers will give independence to the Asian countries, even if it means that some countries will remain divided and two governments: democratic and communist one, will form.;;;X
EVT_8321001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8321002_NAME;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;Surrender of Japanese Empire;;;X
EVT_8321002_DESC;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;At 12:00 noon Japan standard time on August 15, the Emperor's recorded speech to the nation, reading the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, was broadcast: '(...)Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.'\n\nPublic reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. On August 28, 1945, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2, 1945, aboard the United States Navy battleship Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending World War II. Allied civilians and servicemen alike celebrated V-J Day, the end of the war.;;;X
EVT_8321002_A;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;We surrender to the United States;;;X
EVT_8321002_B;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;We surrender to the Soviet Union;;;X
EVT_8321002_C;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;We surrender to the Republic of China;;;X
EVT_8321004_NAME;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;;;X
EVT_8321004_DESC;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;;;X
EVT_8321004_A;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;;;X
EVT_8321005_NAME;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;;;X
EVT_8321005_DESC;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;;;X
EVT_8321005_A;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;;;X
EVT_8321006_NAME;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;Victory over Japan;;;X
EVT_8321006_DESC;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;After months of bloody warfare and thanks to our valiant soldiers we managed to deal a decisive blow to the Empire of Japan. Now we are in charge of peace negotiations and through occupation of Japan will retain a lot of influence over Japanese internal matters over the following years.;;;X
EVT_8321006_A;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;It's our V-J Day;;;X
EVT_8322000_NAME;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;;;X
EVT_8322000_DESC;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;Before World War II started, Empire of Japan possessed large areas of East Asia. Some of these possessions traced their origin to the first expansionist steps of the turn of 19. and 20. century. Others were gained in the interwar period when Japan gained Machuria and tried to subjugate the rest of China. Along with surrender it was sure that some of these lands will change hands and United States, Soviet Union, as well as China will broaden their spheres of possession. The main victor however would have the upper hand in negotiations and receive an extra gratification for their participation in war. For United States and China these would be the strategically located islands of Okinawa, while Soviet Union would gain Hokkaido Island, the northernmost out of Home Islands.;;;X
EVT_8322000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8322001_NAME;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;;;X
EVT_8322001_DESC;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;;;X
EVT_8322001_A;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;;;X
EVT_8322002_NAME;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;;;X
EVT_8322002_DESC;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;;;X
EVT_8322002_A;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;;;X
EVT_8322003_NAME;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;Liberation of nations;;;X
EVT_8322003_DESC;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;End of World War II also in Pacific theater meant that the lands should go back to their original owners. However it was hard to turn a blind eye on the fact that many regions gained a considerable level of autonomy during dark days of war. Now the calls for independence of East Asian nations are loud and it is hard for us to ignore them all.;;;X
EVT_8322003_A;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;Let's liberate them!;;;X
EVT_8322004_NAME;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;;;X
EVT_8322004_DESC;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nNow with Japan on its knees and occupation taking place we can forget our original promises and indict the Emperor of waging aggressive wars where many horrendous attrocities took place. This decision, even if lawfully justifiable, would mean a huge outcry in Japan and would put them certainly at odds with our occupational forces but maybe introducing a fully parliamentary system of power is necessary to bring democracy to Japan?;;;X
EVT_8322004_A;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;;;X
EVT_8322004_B;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;;;X
EVT_8322005_NAME;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;;;X
EVT_8322005_DESC;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, the traditional office of Emperor is nothing but a center of aristocratic sentiments, its preserval a sign of backwardness and superstition. To build a prosperous Japan and unite it under the common virtues of equality and labour, we should put the Emperor on trial and discard this institution for good. As in other states of people's democracy, the general secretary of the communist party will serve as a new leader of the nation.;;;X
EVT_8322005_A;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;;;X
EVT_8322005_B;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;;;X
EVT_8322006_NAME;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;Fate of Mikado;;;X
EVT_8322006_DESC;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;For the Japanese, the preservation of kokutai, meaning the sacred system of imperial power and ages-long tradition of imperial office, was a crucial matter. So much that when atomic bombs fell at the Japanese cities, the Emperor and his government were ready to surrender and agree to occupation but even under circumstances of these days, Japan was not ready to forego tradition and dispose of the imperial office, which bore some of the burden of defeat.\n\nFor us, ruled for thousands of years by an emperor as well, the institution itself is not problematic but it is hard to accept that the current Emperor presided over Japanese aggression into China. His leadership of this savage aggression or even just passive acceptance of this fact can be enough to justify bringing him to the trial. In place of the current Emperor, we can offer the throne to Prince Takamatsu, whom we know as a man loving peace and full of sympathy for our nation's fate.;;;X
EVT_8322006_A;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;Responsibility has no limits!;;;X
EVT_8322006_B;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;Leave the Emperor alone;;;X
EVT_8322007_NAME;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;President Kijuro Shidehara;;;X
EVT_8322007_DESC;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a civilian head of state, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nBaron Kijuro Shidehara was a prominent pre–World War II Japanese diplomat and the 44th Prime Minister of Japan from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II. In 1930s Shidehara served as interim prime minister until March 1931, not long before the Kwangtung Army invaded and occupied Manchuria. This effectively ended the non-interventionist policy towards China, and Shidehara’s career as foreign minister. In October 1931, Shidehara was featured on the cover of TIME with the caption 'Japan's Man of Peace and War.' He maintained a low profile through the end of World War II afterwards. At the time of Japan's surrender in 1945, Shidehara was in semi-retirement. However, largely because of his pro-American reputation, he was appointed to serve as Japan’s second post-war prime minister, from 9 October 1945 to 22 May 1946. Shidehara's cabinet drafted a new constitution for Japan in line with General Douglas MacArthur's policy directives, but the draft was vetoed by the occupation authorities. According to MacArthur and others, it was Shidehara who originally proposed the inclusion of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, a provision which limits Japan's state sovereignty in that it forbids Japan from waging war.;;;X
EVT_8322007_A;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;Welcome, Mr. President;;;X
EVT_8322008_NAME;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;General Secretary Sanzo Nosaka;;;X
EVT_8322008_DESC;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;In spite of our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were not allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. Preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put a mere representative of communist party apparatus, which raised a huge dissent in our traditionalist nation.\n\nSanzo Nosaka was a founder of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) who worked for periods as a writer, editor, labor organizer, communist agent, politician, and university professor. He was the son of a wealthy Japanese merchant, and attended the prestigious Keio University. While in university, Nosaka became interested in social movements, and joined a moderate labor organization after graduation, working as a research staff member, and as a writer and editor of the organization's magazine. He traveled to Britain in 1919 to study political economy, where he deepened his studies of Marxism and became a confirmed communist. After leaving Britain, Nosaka traveled through the Soviet Union (USSR). He returned to Japan in 1922, where he co-founded the Japanese Communist Party (JCP). He then traveled to the West Coast of the United States, where he worked as a communist spy from 1934-1938, then moved to China. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Nosaka returned to Japan with hundreds of other Japanese communists, where he led the Japanese Communist Party during the occupation of Japan. Nosaka attempted to brand the JCP as a populist party supporting Japan's peaceful transition into socialism.;;;X
EVT_8322008_A;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;Welcome, Comrade Secretary;;;X
EVT_8322009_NAME;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;Emperor Takamatsu;;;X
EVT_8322009_DESC;"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";"According to our initial hopes and preliminary agreements, we were allowed to keep our system of imperial institutions intact. But preserving of rule of our current Emperor was deemed unacceptable and he faces charges on a war criminal trial. In his place the military administration put an imperial family member, which nonetheless raised a considerable dissent due to meddling in our most sacred, internal affairs.\n\nNobuhito, Prince Takamatsu of Japan was the third son of HIM Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito) and a younger brother of the HIM Emperor Sh?wa (Hirohito). Prince Takamatsu bitterly opposed the Kwantung Army's incursions in Manchuria in September 1931, the expansion of the July 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident into a full-scale war of aggression against China and in November 1941 warned his brother, Hirohito that the Imperial Japanese Navy could not sustain hostilities for longer than two years against the United States. He urged Emperor Sh?wa to seek peace after the Japanese naval defeat at the Battle of Midway in 1942; an intervention which apparently caused a severe rift between the brothers. After the war, Prince Takamatsu became the honorary president of various charitable, cultural and athletic organizations.";;;X
EVT_8322009_A;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;Bow before the new Emperor;;;X
EVT_8323001_NAME;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;;;X
EVT_8323001_DESC;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;;;X
EVT_8323001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8323002_NAME;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;;;X
EVT_8323002_DESC;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;;;X
EVT_8323002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8323003_NAME;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;Territorial changes;;;X
EVT_8323003_DESC;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;Withdrawal of troops from occupied terriories meant often that the conquered provinces chnaged hands. Sometimes they were given to newly established independent administration bodies but usually the old colonial empires, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, returned to East Asia to reclaim their possessions. In some cases they were able to do that, in other situation it led to prolonged struggles and national upheavals.;;;X
EVT_8323003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8323004_NAME;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;Cession of East Papua;;;X
EVT_8323004_DESC;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;During the war in the Pacific theater, East Papua was one of those unforgiving tropical battlegrounds of World War II where American marines and Japanese soldiers led their bloody struggles. Now as the war ended we can turn back the control over this area to civilian administration of Australia.;;;X
EVT_8323004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8323005_NAME;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;Dutch East Indies;;;X
EVT_8323005_DESC;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;During the Second World War in the Pacific area, our colony of Dutch East Indies, encompassing the present territory of Indonesia, was fully subjugated by the invading forces of Japan. Now, after the war, we were able to return to these lands with the help of the Allied soldiers. It is time to recreate our colonial administration of this area.;;;X
EVT_8323005_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8323006_NAME;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;End of Indochinese Union;;;X
EVT_8323006_DESC;"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";"French Indochina was part of the French colonial empire in southeast Asia. A federation of the three Vietnamese regions, Tonkin (North), Annam (Central), and Cochinchina (South), as well as Cambodia, was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and Kouang-Tchéou-Wan in 1900. The capital was moved from Saigon (in Cochinchina) to Hanoi (Tonkin) in 1902. During World War II, the colony was administered by Vichy France and was under Japanese occupation.\n\nAfter the war, France petitioned for the nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945. American President Roosevelt and General Stilwell, privately made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French Indochina, after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule. It was said that Chiang Kai-shek replied: 'Under no circumstances!'. Eventually, the lands once united under the French administration went different ways, sooner or later becoming independent nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.";;;X
EVT_8323006_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8324001_NAME;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;;;X
EVT_8324001_DESC;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many East Asian countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others the old colonial powers have still a lot to say and can influence their outcome. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace at least in some parts of Asia is about to begin.;;;X
EVT_8324001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8330000_NAME;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;;;X
EVT_8330000_DESC;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;Germans were once our promising allies with whom we could divide decadent capitalist Europe. Soon they turned to brutal invaders, dealing us a huge blow and decimating our armies in a brilliant Blitzkrieg campaign. We fought hard and fought back when retrating behind our original lines of defense but even our vast Motherland proved too small. Hitler presses for peace and even if Stalin vehemently opposes such a treasonous move, some groups in Party leaderships begin to openly oppose this pointless resistance. Maybe it is time to accept the unevitable and try to preserve as much as we can, those resources and manpower that will be left for us in Siberia and Central Asian steppes?;;;X
EVT_8330000_A;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;We have no choice but to surrender;;;X
EVT_8330000_B;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;;;X
EVT_8331000_NAME;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;Dividing the Lebensraum;;;X
EVT_8331000_DESC;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;Apart from many purely military and logistic difficulties the Germans had with Operation Barbarossa, there was also a strategical ideological decision to take once these area were subjugated and our for the taking. Historically, the Germans were reluctant to offer nations of the Soviet Union even token independence even if it could mean their support of the invasion. What was planned was embodied in the so-called Rosenberg Plan which presumed that the conquered territories will mainly get divided into administrative units called Reichskommisariats.\n\nAlternatively, Hitler could decide to further centralize the Nazi rule in the East and annex the whole territory west of Urals into the Greater Reich. If more liberal views in the Nazi circles prevailed, most of these territories would be released in form of the Nazi protectorates, but retaining national symbolics, giving the tormented nations symbolic freedom of communism, even if under another dictatorship.;;;X
EVT_8331000_A;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;Adopt Rosenberg Plan;;;X
EVT_8331000_B;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;It will be a total occupation!;;;X
EVT_8331000_C;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;Let them have freedom!;;;X
EVT_8331000_D;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;No deals with Bolsheviks!;;;X
EVT_8331001_NAME;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;;;X
EVT_8331001_DESC;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with Germans, we will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;;;X
EVT_8331001_A;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;;;X
EVT_8331001_B;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;;;X
EVT_8331002_NAME;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;;;X
EVT_8331002_DESC;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;;;X
EVT_8331002_A;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;;;X
EVT_8331002_B;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;;;X
EVT_8331003_NAME;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;;;X
EVT_8331003_DESC;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;;;X
EVT_8331003_A;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;;;X
EVT_8331003_B;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;We receive some provinces;;;X
EVT_8331004_NAME;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;Invitation to Bitter Peace talks;;;X
EVT_8331004_DESC;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;;;X
EVT_8331004_A;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;We receive sizeable gains;;;X
EVT_8332000_NAME;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;The Bitter Peace is signed;;;X
EVT_8332000_DESC;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;There is now silence and emptiness in the Square of Thousand Year's Reich where the dark and heavy Kremlin building stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see the capital city draped in the colors of the enemy. Stalin is gone, put swiftly on trial after being charged with serious mismanagement of the war effort and now he awaits his fate. USSR sent to Moscow only lesser party apparatchiks who now, just as everyone else in the Soviet circles of power, contemplate what will become with the idea of communist revolution they once believed in.;;;X
EVT_8332000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332011_NAME;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;Japan receives considerable compensation;;;X
EVT_8332011_DESC;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;;;X
EVT_8332011_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332012_NAME;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;Japan receives moderate compensation;;;X
EVT_8332012_DESC;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nIn spite of this initial hesitation, the Japanese war command circles decided to turn their expansionist aims towards Siberia and declared war on the USSR. Surely now, when the Soviets discuss the terms of the Bitter Peace with us they will be richly rewarded for our assistance.;;;X
EVT_8332012_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332013_NAME;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;Japan receives border territories;;;X
EVT_8332013_DESC;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;Historically, Japan even if linked with Germany by the Pact of Steel and naturally sympathetic to the Nazi cause was reluctant to enter into more tangible alliance. The vision of dividing Asia into German and Japanese spheres of influence was tempting but it was still not enough to make Japan break non-agression pact with the Soviets and stab them at the Far Eastern back.\n\nThe Japanese war circles remained adamant to our suggestions that they join our war with the red menace. Now, when the Soviets are on their knees, discussing terms of their surrender, authorities in Tokyo may regret their decision. Still, as a token of goodwill we may cede them Northern Sakhalin and Kuriles that they always claimed as theirs.;;;X
EVT_8332013_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332014_NAME;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;Romania receives considerable compensation;;;X
EVT_8332014_DESC;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;;;X
EVT_8332014_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332015_NAME;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;Romania receives moderate compensation;;;X
EVT_8332015_DESC;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nFaithful assistance of Romanian soldiers within the great German army that put Soviet Union on the verge of existence would not remain forgotten. Depending on the area actually taken by the Romanian armies, Antonescu could count at least on regaining Bessarabia but also on receiving some lands of Southern Ukraine.;;;X
EVT_8332015_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332016_NAME;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;Romania receives border territories;;;X
EVT_8332016_DESC;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;Historically, since the coup of Ion Antonescu, Romania aligned herself strongly with Nazi Germany even if early 1940s brought her unfavourable decisions of the Vienna Dictate and the loss of Dobruja. Romanians were given however the hope of regaining Bessarabia which was demanded by USSR just a couple of years later.\n\nNeutrality of Romania in our epic struggle against the USSR means that they have no chance to receive any special territorial benefits we could crave out of our own conquests for them. Still, as a token of our goodwill and to make void all the unlawful diplomatic moves made by the Soviets, we will grant them ownership of Bessarabia back.;;;X
EVT_8332016_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332017_NAME;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;Finland receives considerable compensation;;;X
EVT_8332017_DESC;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;;;X
EVT_8332017_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332018_NAME;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;Finland receives moderate compensation;;;X
EVT_8332018_DESC;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nYet, it was undeniable that the Finns helped to tie the Soviet forces in the far North and in the case of total German victory, they would have received at least sizeable gains in recently lost Karelia.;;;X
EVT_8332018_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332019_NAME;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;Finland receives border territories;;;X
EVT_8332019_DESC;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;Historically, there were some pro-German notions in Finland but this small country worked diligently to maintain itself out of the Axis alliance. Partly, due to the willingness to retain its image of neutral country, partly because of personal objections of Mannerheim towards Hitler and Nazism, the Finns waged their war alone, refusing Germans help in their most crucial struggle in Leningrad.\n\nThe Finnish neutrality was so strong however, that they decided not to further their claims on the lost lands of Karelia and after experience of bloody Winter War now they remain at peace. After our total defeat of the USSR we will keep majority of lands in the north, still it is of little problem to us to give them those Karelian lands that they lost lately.;;;X
EVT_8332019_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8332020_NAME;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;Turkey receives territories;;;X
EVT_8332020_DESC;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;Historically, during World War II, Turkey maintained neutrality. Ambassadors from the Axis powers and Allies intermingled in Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister, Ismet Inonu, signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany on June 18, 1941, 4 days before the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union. and officially remained neutral until near the end of war. By August 1944, the Axis was clearly losing the war and Turkey broke off relations. Only in February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, while this was largely symbolic it allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.\n\nYet the possible entry into the war on the side of Nazi Germany could be profitable for Turkey which counted on gains in Georgia i Armenia. A well-timed declaration of war on the Soviet Union helped Turkey gain thankfullness of the Nazi leadership and secure territorial expasion in the Caucasus region.;;;X
EVT_8332020_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8333000_NAME;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;Execution of the Rosenberg Plan;;;X
EVT_8333000_DESC;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created by Adolf Hitler on July 1941 and headed by the Nazi theoretical expert and Baltic German, Alfred Rosenberg. This ministry was created to control the vast areas captured by the Germans in Eastern Europe and Russia. It also played a part in supporting anti-Soviet groups in Central Asia.\n\nIn February 1942, under Rosenberg's plans, it tried to promulgate a program of land reform in the occupied territories in the USSR that included promises of decollectivization through abolition of kolkhozes and re-distribution of land to peasants for individual farming. In practice, however, Rosenberg's authority was substantially undermined by the appointment of Erich Koch to administer Ukraine with orders from Hitler to be hard and brutal. Rosenberg wished to portray the Germans as liberators of Ukraine from Soviet domination, but Koch's brutality helped to push potential Ukrainian allies back to the Soviet camp. Furthermore, Rosenberg's ministry was denied authority over army and other security formations within the occupied territories. The other Reich Commissar, Heinrich Lohse (Ostland) was widely disregarded. The resulting power vacuum was filled by the SS who acted as they wished.;;;X
EVT_8333000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8333001_NAME;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;Total occupation of the East;;;X
EVT_8333001_DESC;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. In his plans Hitler wanted to settle 20 million of inhabitants in Ukraine in the 20 years following after the war. Such a goal could have been realized quicker if direct control over administration matters in the East would be retained by Hitler himself. Therefore Russia, Ukraine and other lands in the East were annexed directly into the Reich. This attitude alienated the population, as in some areas (such as Ukraine) it seems that some local people had been ready to consider the Germans as liberators helping them to get rid of Stalin. Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies. The Germans held on stubbornly which resulted in huge casualties on both sides.;;;X
EVT_8333001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8333001_B;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;Don't agree!;;;X
EVT_8333002_NAME;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;Liberation of the East;;;X
EVT_8333002_DESC;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;The original plan for the occupied territories of Soviet Union prepared to put them under special administration of a separate ministry of the Reich for gradual assimilation. Still, the German military leadership was conscious of considerable toll of partisan actions in the East as well as initial enthusiasm of the nations of the USSR for German invasion and perceived liberation. Through our decision to liberate autonomous governments of Eastern Europe we surely guaranteed ourselves an influx of volunteers for our armies and relative peace on this front.\n\nOur move will nevertheless allow us to retain our political influence over these lands even if it won't mean free rein in carrying out our colonization process.;;;X
EVT_8333002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8334000_NAME;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;Fate of USSR;;;X
EVT_8334000_DESC;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;The bitter days out in the cold Siberian wastelands mark the end of the great social and political project of Soviet supremacy. Without heavy industrial and intellectual base of Western and Central Russia we will not be able to use our vast raw material stocks to bring us again on the equal footing with the world's greatest powers.\n\nIn our sorrowful and despicable position the most probable step we could take is to become embroiled in secessionist sentiments and dissolve the Soviet Union altogehter. We would let go local warlords free and shelve the idea of communist revolution that failed us so tremendously, for good. With devoted leadership however we could try to maintain the unity of what has left of our land. We could atone for the sins of Bolshevism and invite the remnants of old Russian ruling family and aristocrats to form a right-wing government. However, if the will to go forward together is strong enough, we could even reshuffle the ruling party elite and invite a cadre of young communists to prove again that what was wrong in communism was only human's error and prevailing cult of personality.;;;X
EVT_8334000_A;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;Dissolve the USSR and what is left of the Union;;;X
EVT_8334000_B;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;Revive the Romanov's tsardom;;;X
EVT_8334000_C;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;The red banner still unites us!;;;X
EVT_8340000_NAME;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;The Crumbling Empire;;;X
EVT_8340000_DESC;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;Winston Churchill once said that we would defend our islands. We would face the enemy on our beaches, we would fight invaders on the streets, we would harrass them in the hills. We did fight valiantly, first in the skies, than on our beloved soil. But we were outnumbered and unmatched cooperation of Luftwaffe, small but quick Kriegsmarine and the rain of fire and steel that Wehrmacht brought on our lads was too much for us to oppose. The Axis advance was successful and with the Home Islands lost our struggle for freedom and democracy seems lost. Our imperial glory is gone and maybe it is time to ask for this peace that Hitler always wanted to offer to us?;;;X
EVT_8340000_A;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;;;X
EVT_8340000_B;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;;;X
EVT_8340001_NAME;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;The Empire Surrenders;;;X
EVT_8340001_DESC;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;Hitler envisioned peace and cooperation with the British nation and hoped for quick reconciliation of two sides of war. They started with the policy of appeasement but soon turned to military resolution seeing that the we show little moderation in our struggle for control over Europe. The war path did not bring them foreseen victory, rather resulted in our successful invasion and humiliating defeat.\n\nNow, as we are in control of the situation, we may shape the post-war Great Britain to our liking and even if our decisions may bring a considerable dissent in occupied territories there is noone to give our hands a slap.;;;X
EVT_8340001_A;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;Dismantle the Empire but leave the Isles alone;;;X
EVT_8340001_B;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;Leave the Empire alone and press for territorial gains;;;X
EVT_8340001_C;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;Press for total annexation!;;;X
EVT_8340001_D;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;We are not interested in peace at all;;;X
EVT_8341000_NAME;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;Fate of the United Kingdom;;;X
EVT_8341000_DESC;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;The heart of the Empire is already occupied by hostile forces and the symbol of unconditional struggle, Winston Churchill, is dismissed from his ministerial post amidst the notion of total defeat of this policy. It is time for our occupants to decide who is going to receive the remnants of our glorious Commonwealth but even before the Nazi aggressors make their grabs, our protectorates and dominions break free with only silence answering their calls to London.;;;X
EVT_8341000_A;London answers in German;London answers in German;London answers in German;London answers in German;London answers in German;London answers in German;London answers in German;London answers in German;;;X
EVT_8341001_NAME;Separate peace;Separate peace;Separate peace;Separate peace;Separate peace;Separate peace;Separate peace;Separate peace;;;X
EVT_8341001_DESC;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;The nations of the British Commonwealth, even if not legally obliged to enter the war on the side of United Kingdom, felt strongly bound to the British cause and one by one declared war on Nazi aggressors. The decision, natural at first, proved problematic now when Germans swept away the British defenses and are marchin on to the aim of the world domination. Claiming that our alliance with the United Kingdom is now void and we are finally free in our actions, we may seek separate peace with the Third Reich.;;;X
EVT_8341001_A;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;We want to leave in peace;;;X
EVT_8341001_B;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;Let's continue to fight in the name of Empire;;;X
EVT_8342000_NAME;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;The Defeated Empire;;;X
EVT_8342000_DESC;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;In London, under heavy occupation of the German forces, rain seems even more intense than usual and dull weather strenghtens the sense of helplessness. This floating carrier and arsenal of democracy in the Old World now swarms with Nazi troopers looking for slightest sign of resistance. The Westminster, standing as a symbol of centuries-long traditions of parliamentarism is now used by the military administration of Grossbritanien. Having acknowledged the bitter truth of the lost war, representatives of the British government meet with German occupational authorities today to sign the instrument of surrender laying the future of Britain irrevocably into Nazi hands. Even if Hitler benevolently invites us back to London to form a government under his kind protection, the blemish on the honor of the Empire won't be erased forever.;;;X
EVT_8342000_A;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;Put the signatures;;;X
EVT_8342004_NAME;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;Annexation of Egypt;;;X
EVT_8342004_DESC;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;As a part of British surrender, we are allowed to annex Egypt as our gratification for siding with the German victors and the next step to build our great Mediterranean empire.;;;X
EVT_8342004_A;Annex them;Annex them;Annex them;Annex them;Annex them;Annex them;Annex them;Annex them;;;X
EVT_8342004_B;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;Let's make a protectorate;;;X
EVT_8342005_NAME;German Africa;German Africa;German Africa;German Africa;German Africa;German Africa;German Africa;German Africa;;;X
EVT_8342005_DESC;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;Out of all the colonial possessions of the Empire the African ones seemed to have the least strategic value and were originally meant to be kept by the British to ease their tensions over losing the most precious colonies - their jewel crowns in Asia. However, Hitler changed his mind, pressing of eradication of even those last symbols of the British imperialism.;;;X
EVT_8342005_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8342006_NAME;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;Japanese Asia;;;X
EVT_8342006_DESC;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;While the British Empire was defeated by Germany, there was another belligerent in Asia waiting for the surrender spoils. Even if they were released as independent states, Japan would make sure that their policies would align with those of Japan and include them sooner or later in their Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.;;;X
EVT_8342006_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8342007_NAME;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;Territorial cessions;;;X
EVT_8342007_DESC;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;After our surrender we have to part with many key possessions around the world that we used to value so much.;;;X
EVT_8342007_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8342008_NAME;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;;;X
EVT_8342008_DESC;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United Kingdom, our European arch-enemy, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. The British Isles are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there is an Empire beyond the seas, numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;;;X
EVT_8342008_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8343000_NAME;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;Leadership for the United Kingdom;;;X
EVT_8343000_DESC;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;Having decided to leave the remnants of the Empire in place we can influence decision of local politicians to shape the constitutional order of the country. The British would be most thankful if we let them retain their traditional system of rule, with a puppet figure of a King and a prime minister, even if in fact he would be subservient to our strategic plans. The most natural step, apart from letting an isolationist government form, would be to invite Edward VIII, whom we know for his postive attitude towards us, back and offer him the crown. We could try a harder task and reconcile old George VI, offering token guarantees of peace and order on the British Isles just like in the good old days.\n\nOur position empowers us to make a much larger stir in the British internal policy. We have our friend there, Oswald Mosley, who most willingly would mimic our regime to become the Great Leader of the British Republic. Even if it meant an outcry among the British who would openly step out and protest?;;;X
EVT_8343000_A;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;Install an isolationist government and invite HRH Edward VIII;;;X
EVT_8343000_B;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;Install an isolationist government with George VI in power;;;X
EVT_8343000_C;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;Let Mosley's blackshirts install a Fascist dictatorship;;;X
EVT_8343001_NAME;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;Splendid isolation;;;X
EVT_8343001_DESC;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. We will now hope that the new government will keep the defeated Empire out of any new problems better than the previous one did.;;;X
EVT_8343001_A;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;;;X
EVT_8343002_NAME;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;God Save King Edward VIII;;;X
EVT_8343002_DESC;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;It turns out that we were spared by the Germans from the most bitter consequences of surrender and we were allowed to form an isolationist government to keep us with an illusion of self-governance. Just as the Germans proposed we invite back Edward VIII who once abdicated our throne but with his Nazi sympathies fits perfectly the current state of affairs. He will preside over our switch in politics to splendid isolation.;;;X
EVT_8343002_A;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;We will behave well!;;;X
EVT_8343003_NAME;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;Blackshirts come to power;;;X
EVT_8343003_DESC;"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";"Oswald Mosley, known to his followers as The Leader, modelled his leadership style on Benito Mussolini and his British Union of Fascists on Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy, including an imitation of the Italian Fascists' black uniforms for members, earning them the nickname ""Blackshirts"". The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups – a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, ""less factionist"" democracy.\n\nThe BUF's programme and ideology were outlined in Mosley's Great Britain (1932) and A. Raven Thompson's The Coming Corporate State (1938). Many BUF policies were built on isolationism, prohibiting trade outside an insulated British Empire. Mosley’s system aimed to protect the British economy from the fluctuations of the world market, especially during the Great Depression, and prevent ""cheap slave competition from abroad.""\n\nMosley's ideas had no serious chance of succeeding, specifically in late 1930s and 1940s. The military victory of Nazi Germany in Britain put Mosley in a completely different situation, as a local leader of strong fascist movement, and as it turns out, a new governor of the German protectorate.";;;X
EVT_8343003_A;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;Hail Mosley!;;;X
EVT_8343010_NAME;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;Dissolution of the United Kingdom;;;X
EVT_8343010_DESC;"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";"Initially, the aim of Nazi foreign policy was to create an Anglo-German alliance, so before 1938, Nazi propaganda tended to glorify British institutions, and above all the British Empire. Even regarding it, along with France, as ""decadent democracies"", Goebbels set out to court them. Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future. Examples of anglophilia in German media was a long article in the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung newspaper in 1936 extolling the British for ""brutally"" resolving the Fashoda crisis of 1898 in their favor or a series of widely promoted biographies and historical novels commemorating various prominent ""Aryan"" figures from British history such as Cromwell, Marlborough, Nelson, Rhodes, Wellington, and Raleigh.\n\nAs the war neared the English started to be denounced as ""the Jew among the Aryan peoples"" and as plutocrats, fighting for money. This was sometimes modified with the suggestion that it was the ruling class alone that was the problem. The change of emphasis was due to Hitler's changed view of Britain from a potential ally to an enemy that would have be destroyed. This emphasis increased as British resistance went on.\n\nNow, as this resistance is finally broken, there is no reason to court the British, no point in leaving them some remnants of their dreams of imperialism. Their United Kingdom will be gone, for good.";;;X
EVT_8343010_A;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;The sun set for the Empire;;;X
EVT_8343011_NAME;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;Independence of Scotland;;;X
EVT_8343011_DESC;"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";"From the mid-19th century, calls for the devolution of control over Scottish affairs began to be raised, but support for full independence remained limited. The ""home rule"" movement for a Scottish Assembly was first taken up in 1853 by a body close to the Conservative Party. In 1921, the Scots National League formed as a body primarily based in London seeking Scottish independence, largely influenced by Sinn Féin. They established the Scots Independent newspaper in 1926 and in 1928 they helped the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association form the National Party of Scotland, aiming for a separate Scottish state.\n\nAt first, the SNP did not support all-out independence for Scotland, but rather the establishment of a devolved Scottish Assembly, within the United Kingdom. The alleged similarity between SNP and foreign nationalists, combined with other factors such as a lack of profile in mainstream media, made it difficult for the SNP to grow. Now, with Nazi Germany taking full control over British matters, the more civic-oriented leadership of the Party may now resign and independent Scotland be formed, built upon ultranationalist ideals.";;;X
EVT_8343011_A;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;Revoke the Act of Union!;;;X
EVT_8344000_NAME;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;New German sphere of influence;;;X
EVT_8344000_DESC;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After defeating the British and releasing new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Third Reich as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones, located in the Mediterranean will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;;;X
EVT_8344000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8344001_NAME;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;Southeast Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere;;;X
EVT_8344001_DESC;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;After Germans defeated the British and let us release new independent nations across the world we count on special treatment of the Japanese Empire as a benevolent and just liberator among them. Especially the most pivotal ones will become our puppets and we will closely oversee their politics to ensure they will be acting in our favour.;;;X
EVT_8344001_A;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;;;X
EVT_8344001_B;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8344002_NAME;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;Ireland in Nazi sphere of influence;;;X
EVT_8344002_DESC;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;During the Second World War, after the French surrender, Britain made a qualified offer of Irish unity in June 1940, without reference to those living in Northern Ireland. The revised final terms were signed by Neville Chamberlain on 28 June 1940 and sent to Éamon de Valera. On their rejection, neither the London or Dublin governments publicised the matter. Ireland/Éire would effectively join the allies against Germany by allowing British ships to use its ports, arresting Germans and Italians, setting up a joint defence council and allowing overflights. In return, arms would be provided to Éire and British forces would cooperate on a German invasion. London would declare that it accepted 'the principle of a United Ireland' in the form of an undertaking 'that the Union is to become at an early date an accomplished fact from which there shall be no turning back.'\n\nWhile the unification was clearly one of the goals of the Irish government, de Valera did not believe that the UK could really deliver their promise. Now, as Germany defeated the British by making them surrender, it is Hitler who promises Ulster to us and now this offer seems to be realistic enough.;;;X
EVT_8344002_A;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;Let's forge an alliance!;;;X
EVT_8344002_B;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8344003_NAME;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;Italy in Nazi sphere of influence;;;X
EVT_8344003_DESC;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;The relationship between Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was a contentious one early on. While Hitler cited Mussolini as an influence and expressed privately great admiration for him, Mussolini had little regard for Hitler, especially after the Nazis had assassinated his friend and ally, Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1934. With the assassination of Dollfuss, Mussolini attempted to distance himself from Hitler by rejecting much of the racialism espoused by the German radical. By 1938 however, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race by Mussolini, adopting similar racial overtones. It has been widely speculated that Mussolini's reasoning to adopt the Manifesto of Race in 1938 was merely tactical, in order to strengthen Italy's relations with Germany.\n\nStill, all the pressure made by Germany was not enough to coerce Italians into joining the Axis war alliance. Now, when the major part of the war is finished as the British Empire fell, maybe it is time to end bearing this grudge and finally come with the Nazi Germany hand in hand?;;;X
EVT_8344003_A;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;;;X
EVT_8344003_B;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8344004_NAME;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;Spain in Nazi sphere of influence;;;X
EVT_8344004_DESC;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;Historically, although Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (23 October 1940), to discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food, military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa etc.) proved too much and no agreement was reached. He remained emphatically neutral in the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies. Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by Hitler's propagation of Nazi mysticism and his attempts to manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's fervent commitment to defending Christianity and Catholicism. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and its allies.\n\nYet, as the war progressed brilliantly for Hitler and the British Empire has just offered its surrender, Spain has effectively no other way to go but to strenghten her ties with Germany and most probably help Germans in their further conquests.;;;X
EVT_8344004_A;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;Let's finally forge an alliance!;;;X
EVT_8344004_B;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8350000_NAME;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;The Lost Hope;;;X
EVT_8350000_DESC;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;We once fought that our country is invincible. That we may experience setbacks on foreign soil and lose battles on other continents but here, on American soil, our nation stands strong and valiant. We believed that we are the arsenal of democracy that could wage the war indefinitely and beat dictatorships with our notion of righteousness alone.\n\nThe bombs that fell and sound of hostile forces marching woke us up from our American dream. The enemy was indeed superior and our homeland will never be the same.;;;X
EVT_8350000_A;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;All is lost;;;X
EVT_8350000_B;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;We fight on!;;;X
EVT_8351000_NAME;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;Surrender of United States;;;X
EVT_8351000_DESC;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;As we accepted our impending defeat, we started negotiations with the agressors in hope that we may be able to get out of this debacle humiliated but relatively unscathed.;;;X
EVT_8351000_A;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;Nazi Germany is victorious;;;X
EVT_8351000_B;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;Empire of Japan is victorious;;;X
EVT_8351001_NAME;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;;;X
EVT_8351001_DESC;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;The main and direct goal of the Japanese was establishment of their control zone in East Asia which would enable them to extract precious resources and satisfy imperialist ambitions. Decisive victory over United States came as a surprise even to the most hawkish of Japanese war leaders. Now, besides lifting a crippling oil embargo, Japan may claim sizable gains on the Pacifc coast of United States.;;;X
EVT_8351001_A;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;;;X
EVT_8351001_B;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;;;X
EVT_8351002_NAME;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;Invitation to peace talks;;;X
EVT_8351002_DESC;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;For Hitler, it was Europe that was the most important goal and he cared little about forming his colonies in other parts of the world, even if these were the lands lost after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, there were no serious plans of annexing any part of United States and the American empire was meant to be brought back to isolationism.\n\nNevertheless, the German troops are already on the German soil and can divide the land as the German Nazi command wishes. Undoubtedly, we will leave the most industrialized and precious part of United States, its Atlantic coast, in our hands.;;;X
EVT_8351002_A;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;We will receive considerable gains;;;X
EVT_8351002_B;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;We will receive moderate gains;;;X
EVT_8351003_NAME;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;;;X
EVT_8351003_DESC;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;;;X
EVT_8351003_A;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;;;X
EVT_8351003_B;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;;;X
EVT_8351003_C;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;;;X
EVT_8351003_D;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;;;X
EVT_8351004_NAME;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;;;X
EVT_8351004_DESC;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;While it was decided that we will directly annex some portion of United States, the fate of the majority of its land is yet to be decided. The American politicians and citizens in general, would hope to be left in peace, where they are, and would gladly follow the isolationist path from now on. We can help them by retaining the current American facade, their symbols and institutions. We can also divide the states into a couple of regions to help win one parts of American society against others and play on the sentiments of Confederacy in the South. At last we can go the way of near-total annexation and institute permanent military occupation in the whole U.S., if we dare toil with American insurgency.;;;X
EVT_8351004_A;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;Transform USA into out protectorate;;;X
EVT_8351004_B;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;Divide the states once united;;;X
EVT_8351004_C;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;Press for as much as possible!;;;X
EVT_8351004_D;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;We won't settle for peace!;;;X
EVT_8352000_NAME;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;The Defeated Superpower;;;X
EVT_8352000_DESC;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;;;X
EVT_8352000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8352001_NAME;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;;;X
EVT_8352001_DESC;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the world superpowers, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;;;X
EVT_8352001_A;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;;;X
EVT_8352002_NAME;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;Japan receives considerable spoils;;;X
EVT_8352002_DESC;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;Because of claims of Japanese Empire over our western lands and advancement of their troops, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of land in California but also wide territories of Rocky Mountains.;;;X
EVT_8352002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8352003_NAME;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;Japan receives minor spoils;;;X
EVT_8352003_DESC;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;The Empire of Japan claims wide areas of land in the west of our country but their advance was not far enough to secure those claims. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Pacific Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;;;X
EVT_8352003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8352004_NAME;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;Germany receives considerable spoils;;;X
EVT_8352004_DESC;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;Nazi troops advanced very far into our beloved lands which spurred vocal demands of annexation of the large parts in the east. Unfortunately, we will have to part with considerable parts of our country, containing not only a coastal strip of Atlantic Coast but also Appalachian Region and the land far south up to Florida.;;;X
EVT_8352004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8352005_NAME;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;Germany receives minor spoils;;;X
EVT_8352005_DESC;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;Naiz troops did not come far enough to secure large parts of our land and their original claims for the land in the East were weak. Still, we will have to part with a coastal strip of the Atlantic Coast for annexation by our oppressors.;;;X
EVT_8352005_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8342010_NAME;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;Continuation of World War 2;;;X
EVT_8342010_DESC;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;The United States, our arch-enemy of the Western Hemisphere, fallen under the boots of our soldiers. Their lands are subjugated and our main target is completed. Still, there have still left numerous British dominions which have yet to decide whether they are going to carry on fighting.;;;X
EVT_8342010_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353000_NAME;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;;;X
EVT_8353000_DESC;"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";"As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh; we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate or we can even promote candidacy of Fritz Kuhn, our loyal and fanatic follower from German-American Bund.";;;X
EVT_8353000_A;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;;;X
EVT_8353000_B;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;Invite German American Bund to form government;;;X
EVT_8353000_C;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;;;X
EVT_8353001_NAME;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;;;X
EVT_8353001_DESC;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;As we decided to keep United States afloat, even if under our protectorate and in diminished territorial shape, we can influence their postwar policies by establishing their new government, replacing the previous one, responsible for defeat. We can promote long-standing isolationist chapions, America First committee with Charles Lindbergh or we can promote Dixiecrats under leadership of Strom Thurmond who would probably appeal to most of the potential electorate.;;;X
EVT_8353001_A;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;Invite America First to form government;;;X
EVT_8353001_C;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;Seek cooperative politicians among Republicans;;;X
EVT_8353002_NAME;America First;America First;America First;America First;America First;America First;America First;America First;;;X
EVT_8353002_DESC;"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";"The America First Committee was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 650 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history. Started in 1940, it shut down after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. Despite the onset of war in Europe, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted to stay out of the new war if they could. The AFC tapped into this widespread anti-war feeling in the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into the war.\n\nCharles Lindbergh had been actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC. Lindbergh adopted an anti-war stance even before the Battle of Britain and before the advent of the lend-lease bill. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939 over all three of the major radio networks. On June 20, 1941 Lindbergh spoke to a rally in Los Angeles billed as ""Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting"". In his speech of that day, Lindbergh criticized those movements he perceived as leading America into the war. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech he delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, as the Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better.\n\nWith the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:\n\n'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.'";;;X
EVT_8353002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353003_NAME;German American Bund;German American Bund;German American Bund;German American Bund;German American Bund;German American Bund;German American Bund;German American Bund;;;X
EVT_8353003_DESC;"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";"In March 1936, the German American Bund was established in Buffalo, New York, following the suggestion of Rudolf Hess, to rally pro-Nazi movements in the United States. It elected a German-born American citizen Fritz Julius Kuhn, a veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I and an Alter Kämpfer of the NSDAP, as the leader (Bundesführer) of the group. The Bund held rallies with Nazi insignia and procedures such as the Hitler salute, and attacked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jewish groups, Communism, ""Moscow-directed"" trade unions and the American boycotts of German goods. The organization claimed to show its loyalty to America by displaying the flag of the United States at Bund meetings, and declared that George Washington was ""the first Fascist"" who did not believe democracy would work.\n\nThe organization received no financial or verbal support from Germany, and on 1 March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no Reichsdeutsche could be a member of the Bund, and that no Nazi emblems were to be used by the organization. This was done both to appease the U.S and to distance Germany from the Bund, which was increasingly a cause of embarrassment with its rhetoric and actions.\n\nArguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 20, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, calling his New Deal the ""Jew Deal"", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.";;;X
EVT_8353003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353004_NAME;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;Republican isolationist government;;;X
EVT_8353004_DESC;"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government. They opposed racial integration and wanted to retain white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. The summary of their views was expressed in their platform:\n\n'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totaltarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.'";;;X
EVT_8353004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353010_NAME;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;;;X
EVT_8353010_DESC;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, bringing back most of 19. century ideals of this movement. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;;;X
EVT_8353010_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353020_NAME;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;;;X
EVT_8353020_DESC;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Japan, America will be wholly ours.;;;X
EVT_8353020_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353021_NAME;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;Annexation of the United States;;;X
EVT_8353021_DESC;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;According to our decision, United States will be annexed and the country will form a direct part of our nation. With the except of Texan state and lands assigned directly to Germany, America will be wholly ours.;;;X
EVT_8353021_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8353022_NAME;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;Independence of Texas;;;X
EVT_8353022_DESC;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;Texas was the biggest state among the mainland American states and a rich territory with considerable deposits of oil, traditions of independence as Republic of Texas in the 19. century and population determined to keep their influence over the matters of their state. Now, in the age of Nazi influence over fragmented United States we will use separatist sentiments to recreate Republic of Texas under our guidance.;;;X
EVT_8353022_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8354000_NAME;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;;;X
EVT_8354000_DESC;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;;;X
EVT_8354000_A;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;;;X
EVT_8354001_NAME;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;American sphere of influence;;;X
EVT_8354001_DESC;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;;;X
EVT_8354001_A;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;Set it up!;;;X
EVT_8360000_NAME;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;;;X
EVT_8360000_DESC;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. Chamberlain's generous terms of peaceful coexistence were meant to prove that Hitler's Germany can find its place in Europe but they lost their chance by going the way of unstoppable conquer. Even though, the Allied armies brought German armies on the brink of total defeat, thrusting into German homeland. There will be no negotiations, all is lost, and we are asked to accept the inevitable.;;;X
EVT_8360000_A;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;It's time for unconditional surrender;;;X
EVT_8360001_NAME;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;Fall of the Third Reich;;;X
EVT_8360001_DESC;"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";"Meant to stand for a thousand years, the Nazi Empire is no more. We have not asked them to capitulate; what would be the reason to state the obvious? There was no knife in their backs, only total victory.";;;X
EVT_8360001_A;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;The Fascist beast is dead;;;X
EVT_8360002_NAME;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;The Day of Victory;;;X
EVT_8360002_DESC;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;Upon the defeat of the Nazi Germany army, celebrations erupted throughout the western world. In the United Kingdom, more than one million people celebrated in the streets to mark the end of the European part of the war. In London, crowds massed in Trafalgar Square and up The Mall to Buckingham Palace, where King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, appeared on the balcony of the Palace before the cheering crowds, along with the victorious Prime Minister. Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) and her sister Princess Margaret were allowed to wander anonymously among the crowds and take part in the celebrations.;;;X
EVT_8360002_A;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;War is over!;;;X
EVT_8360010_NAME;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;Surrender of Italian Social Republic;;;X
EVT_8360010_DESC;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;With German unconditional surrender negotations underway Italian Social Republic fell into disarray. Puppet regime of Republic of Salo, without the protection of its German allies, could defend itself no more.\n\nMussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee.\n\nOn 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.;;;X
EVT_8360010_A;'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';'Shoot me in the chest!';;;X
EVT_8360011_NAME;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;Surrender of Vichy France;;;X
EVT_8360011_DESC;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;Following the Liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944, Pétain and his ministers were taken to Germany by the German forces. There, Fernand de Brinon established a government in exile at Sigmaringen—in which Pétain refused to participate—until 22 April 1945.\n\nThe Free French, fearing that the Allies could decide to put France under the rule of Allied military government strove to establish quickly the Provisional Government of the French Republic. The first action of that government was to re-establish republican legality throughout metropolitan France. The provisional government considered that the Vichy government had been unconstitutional and thus that all its actions had been illegal. All statutes, laws, regulations and decisions by the Vichy government, akcnowledged as illegal by the government, were thus made null and devoid of effects.\n\nDe Gaulle wrote later that Pétain's decision to return to France to face his accusers in person was 'certainly courageous'. De Gaulle's provisional government placed Pétain on trial, which took place from 23 July to 15 August 1945, for treason. He remained silent through most of the proceedings, after an initial statement that denied the right of the High Court, as presently constituted, to try him. At the end of Pétain's trial, although the three judges proposed Pétain's acquittal on all the charges laid against him, the jury convicted him and passed a death sentence by a majority of one. On account of Pétain's age the Court asked that the sentence not be carried out. De Gaulle, who was President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, on the grounds of Pétain's age and recognition of his World War I contributions. After conviction, the Court stripped Pétain of all military ranks and honors, except Pétain's distinction as a Marshal of France, which it had no power to declare void.\n\nNow in his nineties, Pétain's physical and mental condition deteriorated to where he required round-the-clock nursing care. He died at Île d'Yeu on July 23, 1951, at the age of 95. His body is buried at a marine cemetery near the prison rather than in the grave prepared for him at Verdun battle memorial.;;;X
EVT_8360011_A;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;Such an end of our hero;;;X
EVT_8360020_NAME;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;Out of War;;;X
EVT_8360020_DESC;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;The gruesome moments of Second World War have just ended, at least in Europe, after Nazi Germany was forced to concede its total and irrevocable defeat. There were many nations pitting their forces in this epic battle, shedding blood of their people and setting their minds, strength and hearts at the aim of winning this struggle regardless of the costs. We managed to remain a peaceful island in this sea of brutality, our neutrality remained undisputed and our citizens could lead their little lives in peace.;;;X
EVT_8360020_A;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;How fortunate!;;;X
EVT_8360101_NAME;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;Occupied Territories;;;X
EVT_8360101_DESC;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;Shortly after the war, until the occupied territories regained independence, they remained under the supervision of military commanders of respective armies, acting as first people in-charge of the liberated provinces. In some situations, like in France, the civilian governments immediately took control of domestic matters, while in other cases, like Germany and Austria, military administration remained in power for years.\n\nNote: For game purposes, all the territory conquered in WW2 is pooled by United Kigdom as the leader of the Allies before giving independence to respective countries.;;;X
EVT_8360101_A;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;Let us divide Europe;;;X
EVT_8360200_NAME;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;Liberation of the Nations;;;X
EVT_8360200_DESC;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;Already during the Potsdam Conference, on 30 July 1945, the Allied Control Council was constituted in Berlin to execute the Allied resolutions, meant to carry out denazification, demilitarization, democratization, decentralization and disassemblement. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that for the rest of the occupied lands, all occupying parties were to allow recreation of pre-war European countries (although not necessarily within their pre-war borders) and ensure free and democratic elections to take place.;;;X
EVT_8360200_A;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;Redraw the maps;;;X
EVT_8360203_NAME;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;Liberation of Iceland and Greenland;;;X
EVT_8360203_DESC;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;Now, since the war is over, we can hand over control of the Arctic territories we control since our entry into the Second World War.;;;X
EVT_8360203_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8360301_NAME;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;;;X
EVT_8360301_DESC;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status with some exceptions to allow Poland have her gains in the Eastern Germany.;;;X
EVT_8360301_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8360302_NAME;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;Countries take shape;;;X
EVT_8360302_DESC;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;The end of the war marked the time when the soldiers had to (mostly) give way to civilian administration. Serious territorial changes that the World War One resulted in brought revisionism and nationalist unrest so the post-war Europe was to be rebuilt according to pre-1938 status. However, the were some exceptions. Soviet Union, being a major belligerent, claimed the areas of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, Czechoslovakia and the region of Bessarabia. Given the size of their bloody contribution to the final outcome of the war, their clams were hard to repudiate.;;;X
EVT_8360302_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8360303_NAME;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;Rights to Bessarabia;;;X
EVT_8360303_DESC;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but the pressure from USSR grew stronger and stronger. Now, as a Soviet puppet we have no choice but to give in to their demands for good.;;;X
EVT_8360303_A;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;Cede Bessarabia to USSR;;;X
EVT_8360304_NAME;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;Moldavian Socialist Soviet Republic;;;X
EVT_8360304_DESC;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;Bessarabia was for long a disputed region. Before the war it belonged to Romania but our pressure grew stronger and stronger. Now it became eventually our possession.;;;X
EVT_8360304_A;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;Welcome Moldavians among Soviet nations;;;X
EVT_8360305_NAME;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;;;X
EVT_8360305_DESC;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;Subcarpathian Rus used to belong to Czechoslovakia, inhabited by predominantly Hungarian populations, with sizable Slovak, Rusyn and German minorities. After the war, we come under strong pressure from our Soviet liberators to cede this land to Ukrainian SSR.;;;X
EVT_8360305_A;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;Wave them goodbye;;;X
EVT_8360306_NAME;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;Rights to Subcarpathian Rus;;;X
EVT_8360306_DESC;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;In the fall of 1944 when the north and eastern parts of Carpatho-Rus were captured by the Red Army, the Czechoslovak government delegation led by minister František Nìmec arrived in Khust to establish the provisional Czechoslovak administration, according to the treaties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak governments from the same year. However, after a few weeks, the Red Army and NKVD started to obstruct the delegation's work and the 'National committee of Transcarpatho-Ukraine' was set up in Mukachevo under the protection of the Red Army. On November 26 this committee, led by Ivan Turyanitsa proclaimed the will of Ukrainian people to separate from Czechoslovakia and join the Soviet Ukraine. After two months of conflicts and negotiations the Czechoslovak government delegation departed Khust on February 1, 1945, leaving the Carpathian Rus under Soviet control.\n\nAfter World War II, on June 29, 1945, a treaty was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, ceding Carpatho-Rus officially to the Soviet Union. In 1946, Rus was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.;;;X
EVT_8360306_A;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;It's part of Ukraine!;;;X
EVT_8360400_NAME;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;Post-war government;;;X
EVT_8360400_DESC;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;When the dust of war subsides, there is time to rebuild war-torn cities and start the lives anew. In many European countries it is time of formation of the first post-war governments, either through special nominations or general elections. In some countries the elections are free, in others there are marred by the growing pressure of occupying powers and their secret agents. Regardless of political setting of each country, the new era of peace in Europe is about to begin.;;;X
EVT_8360400_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8370001_NAME;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;Fate of British Raj;;;X
EVT_8370001_DESC;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;The crown jewel of the British Empire, India, gained a lot of autonomy in the years preceding the war and the difficulties of the United Kingdom contributed to even more outspoken independence movements and fiery revolts. Now when Germany dealt a fatal blow to the Great Britain nothing holds us in common with the defeated empire. Depending on the international situation we can break completely free and try to face the difficulties of further warfare. We could also ask either Germans or Japanese for protection in return for peace and exchange one dependence that we lived under to another.\n\nNote: Because India lies in the Japanese area of interest, as accepted among Axis leaders, only protection of Japan would guarantee peace with both Germany and Japan. Coming under protection of Germany will not mean cessation of state of war with Japan unless both Axis parties are linked by the formal alliance.;;;X
EVT_8370001_A;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;We would like to remain independent;;;X
EVT_8370001_B;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;Ask the Empire of Japan for protection;;;X
EVT_8370001_C;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;Ask Germany for protection;;;X
EVT_8370002_NAME;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;;;X
EVT_8370002_DESC;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to side with the most natural ally and asked us to include them in our Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;;;X
EVT_8370002_A;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;;;X
EVT_8370002_B;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;;;X
EVT_8370003_NAME;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;Protectorate of India;;;X
EVT_8370003_DESC;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;Facing the freedom of choice after the United Kingdom is defeated by the German invaders, India decided to follow suit and pledge her allegiance to the Third Reich. This proposal is hard to decline as we could gain a crown jewel for ourselves but maybe it is better to wage a war against them with a view to total annexation?;;;X
EVT_8370003_A;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;Let there be Protectorate of India;;;X
EVT_8370003_B;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;There will be only war!;;;X
EVT_8370010_NAME;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;Withdrawal from the Allies;;;X
EVT_8370010_DESC;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by merciless Nazi invaders. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and sooner or later Germans will send their tanks to our beloved country. Shall we react first and send our proposal of peace to Hitler?;;;X
EVT_8370010_A;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;The cause is lost;;;X
EVT_8370010_B;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;;;X
EVT_8370011_NAME;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;South Africa asks for peace;;;X
EVT_8370011_DESC;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;;;X
EVT_8370011_A;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;;;X
EVT_8370011_B;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;;;X
EVT_8370012_NAME;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;Canada asks for peace;;;X
EVT_8370012_DESC;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;;;X
EVT_8370012_A;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;;;X
EVT_8370012_B;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;;;X
EVT_8370013_NAME;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;Australia asks for peace;;;X
EVT_8370013_DESC;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;The mighty British Empire has just surrendered, falling apart defeated by our brave solderis. United Kingdom used to be the centre of the Empire, the clasp that kept dominions all across the world together, the symbol of tradition and democracy in the troubled world. Now the Empire no longers stands on its feet and the Allied countries know that sooner or later we will send their tanks to take their lands. We were asked to show our benevolence and sign peace treaty allowing once proud dominion to remain independent in their isolation. Shall we agree to this plan?;;;X
EVT_8370013_A;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;Sign peace;;;X
EVT_8370013_B;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;Show no mercy;;;X
EVT_8380000_NAME;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;Fall of the Soviet Union;;;X
EVT_8380000_DESC;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;Our conflict against United States brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Americans already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with capitalist invaders?;;;X
EVT_8380000_A;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;;;X
EVT_8380000_B;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;;;X
EVT_8381000_NAME;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;Fate of the Soviet Union;;;X
EVT_8381000_DESC;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;We subjugated vast lands of the Soviet Union but until now it is not clear what can we do with our victory. The most obvious choice would be to bring liberty and democracy to Russia and let various nationalities across these lands attain their independence. Then, we can support strong conservative Russia, under the heirs of the tsars, to keep communist sentiments under close guard. At last we can carve out a raw materials base of Siberia for our own needs and limit boundaries of Russia mostly to her European confines. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but shouldn't we bring American way of life to these poor lands?;;;X
EVT_8381000_A;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;Liberate the nations and give them democracy;;;X
EVT_8381000_B;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;Reinstitute a conservative Empire of Russia;;;X
EVT_8381000_C;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;Let us have a raw material base of Siberia;;;X
EVT_8381000_D;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;No deals with those commies!;;;X
EVT_8382000_NAME;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;Instrument of surrender to United States;;;X
EVT_8382000_DESC;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;The Red Square, taken from the Russian hands, is now regularly patrolled by American troops but the dark and heavy Kremlin building still stands. It hurts much the hearts of the Soviet representatives who came to Moscow to sign the surrender deal, to see stars and stripes that replaced symbols of the workers' unity. The communist power is already toppled and democratic and conservative circles in Russia regain their power, plotting to take power on the embers of the socialist state.;;;X
EVT_8382000_A;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;Such a sad day;;;X
EVT_8383000_NAME;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;Republic of Russia;;;X
EVT_8383000_DESC;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.;;;X
EVT_8383000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8383001_NAME;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;Empire of All The Russias;;;X
EVT_8383001_DESC;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;Even though majority of Americans would expect that victory of their boys in Russia would bring democracy and liberty to these lands, American policymakers were wary of possible turmoil and communist backlash in the vast territories of former Soviet Union. Only strong conservative elements could keep those tendencies in check, united under the remnants of Romanov dynasty. Today, we observe coronation of the surviving heir of the tsars, Vladimir Cyrillovich, crowned as Vladimir III, hoping that he brings glory to Russia that communists could not achieve.;;;X
EVT_8383001_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8383002_NAME;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;Division of Russia;;;X
EVT_8383002_DESC;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Americans insisted on modelling politics in our country after their democratic ideals. Throngs of liberal social democrats and free-market proponents emerged, conflicted with each other from the onset. One may wonder, how is it possible in the land that lately was the hallmark of communist unity. Anyway, we will have to comply, trying hard to follow principles of representative democracy and giving independence to various nations across our country which once agreed to form union with us.\n\nWhat is worse, even though they preach peace and lawfullness, Americans are apparently not moving out of Siberia, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to extract as much of our mineral goods. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;;;X
EVT_8383002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8389000_NAME;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Support the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;;;X
EVT_8389000_DESC;"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nGiven current situation in Russia, defending against American invasion, this fifth column could prove really worthy our support.";;;X
EVT_8389000_A;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;Fund their secret cells;;;X
EVT_8389000_B;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;We'd better spend money on our military;;;X
EVT_8389001_NAME;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;;;X
EVT_8389001_DESC;"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";"The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists, known by its Russian abbreviation ""NTS"" (???) was a Russian far-right anticommunist organization founded in 1930 by a group of young Russian anticommunist White emigres in Belgrade, Serbia (then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The organization was formed in response to the older generation of Russian emigres (veterans of the White movement) who were perceived as being stagnant and resigned to their loss in the Russian Civil War. The youth which formed NTS decided to take an active role in fighting communism by studying the newly emerging Soviet culture, the psyche of a person living in the USSR, and developing a political program based on the concept of solidarism.\n\nThe NTS believed that force was the only means by which the Soviet regime could be toppled, and that an internal revolution was the best means for this. The group made several attempts at sending its people into the USSR illegally before, during, and after World War II for the purpose of creating an underground revolutionary force in Soviet Russia. The organization, despite the support of foreign intelligence agencies, could not match the powerful network of the OGPU and NKVD. The pre and post war attempts were the least successful, often ending in shootouts with the Soviet Secret police, or capture.\n\nSeeking support through most infamous means, it seems that American agents came into contact with this organization, influencing it to carry out terrorist attacks within our territory!";;;X
EVT_8389001_A;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;The attacks do little damage;;;X
EVT_8389001_B;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;Our morale falls dramatically!;;;X
EVT_8389002_NAME;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;;;X
EVT_8389002_DESC;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing our victory over the red menace. We are understandably thankful but shall we go further and involve them in the new Russian government?;;;X
EVT_8389002_A;Say thanks;Say thanks;Say thanks;Say thanks;Say thanks;Say thanks;Say thanks;Say thanks;;;X
EVT_8389002_B;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;Ask to form the government;;;X
EVT_8389003_NAME;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;Government of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists;;;X
EVT_8389003_DESC;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;The National Alliance of Russian Solidarists had their share in securing American victory over the red menace. Americans recognized this utmost sacrifice and asked them to form the new post-war government of Russia.;;;X
EVT_8389003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8390000_NAME;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;Fall of the United States;;;X
EVT_8390000_DESC;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;Our conflict against Soviet Union brought us many military defeats and the current state of war is very grim for us. Soviet already took key points of our country and we lost majority of our industrial and population centres. Shall we accept the inevitable and enter peace talks with communist invaders?;;;X
EVT_8390000_A;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;Start peace talks;;;X
EVT_8390000_B;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;Fight to the bitter end!;;;X
EVT_8391000_NAME;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;Fate of the United States;;;X
EVT_8391000_DESC;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;We subjugated vast lands of the United States, something that our military and political leaders dreamed of for long. Now there comes the time to decide how should we set America up. It goes without saying that the preferred choice would be to shape America after the Soviet Union, bringing them our economic, political and social system. We find very little domestic support in the occupied lands for such move. It will be easier to support socialists and social-democrats still active in the USA and retain most basic elements of their system, just filled with left-wing enthusiasts. Eventually, we can retain our troops on American soil, however costly it may be, and divide USA into puppet communist republics. This won't be looked upon favorably by the international community, nor will we find it easy to occupy such vast territories but wouldn't it mean total victory for us anyway?;;;X
EVT_8391000_A;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;Found the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America;;;X
EVT_8391000_B;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;Install socialists within the current framework;;;X
EVT_8391000_C;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;Occupy USA and create secessionist states;;;X
EVT_8391000_D;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;No deals with capitalist dogs!;;;X
EVT_8391001_NAME;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;Mexican question and USSR;;;X
EVT_8391001_DESC;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;While we liberate peoples of America from the capitalists and imperialists we cannot forget that Mexico was one of victims of American expansionism. Radical socialist movements were always strong there and we could benefit from their support. We could boost position of those left-wing parties and groups of interest there a lot if we offered them territories of Alta California, showing that we want to fight imperialism not only in name.;;;X
EVT_8391001_A;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;Propose the deal;;;X
EVT_8391001_B;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;We will take it all!;;;X
EVT_8391002_NAME;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;Soviets share their conquests;;;X
EVT_8391002_DESC;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;Ever since the secession of the lands Alta California to the United States in 19. century, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once ours. We would have to enter into military alliance with USSR, thankful for their gift, and left-wing parties would most probably take power in our country, but isn't it worth the cost?;;;X
EVT_8391002_A;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;Agree to the deal;;;X
EVT_8391002_B;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;Politely refuse;;;X
EVT_8392000_NAME;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;Surrender of the United States;;;X
EVT_8392000_DESC;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;The inevitable came and the American military leadership signs today the instrument of surrender. Maybe our leaders got reckless in waging the war, maybe our society became too decadent, it is clear that we were defeated by efficient and ruthless masses of enemy soldiers, under deluge of warriors who will not appreciate our way of living and ideals that we cherish. There won't be anyone who will stand strong to defend democracy and the principles of liberty. All the key people, military and civilian, Democrats and Republicans, know that, and this bitter moment will be long remembered in the history of the world.;;;X
EVT_8392000_A;What a sad day;What a sad day;What a sad day;What a sad day;What a sad day;What a sad day;What a sad day;What a sad day;;;X
EVT_8392001_NAME;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;Alta California;;;X
EVT_8392001_DESC;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;Most of the area gained by United States after the war in 1848 had been the Mexican territory of Alta California, while a southeastern strip on the Rio Grande had been part of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, most of whose area and population were east of the Rio Grande on land that had been claimed by the Republic of Texas since 1835. Mexico controlled the territory later known as the Mexican Cession, with considerable local autonomy punctuated by several revolts and few troops sent from central Mexico, in the period from 1821-2 after independence from Spain up through 1846 when U.S. military forces seized control of California and New Mexico on the outbreak of the Mexican-American War.\n\nThe cession of this territory from Mexico was a major goal of the war. Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico were captured soon after the start of the war and the last resistance there was subdued in January 1847, but Mexico would not accept the loss of territory. Therefore during 1847 United States troops invaded central Mexico and occupied the Mexican capital of Mexico City, but still no Mexican government was willing to ratify transfer of the northern territories to the U.S.\n\nEven though the agreement was finally reached, the Mexicans always longed for the lands that they inherited from Spain but lost so soon afterwards. Now, with United States surrendering to the Soviet Union, there comes the time to reclaim what was once theirs.;;;X
EVT_8392001_A;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;It is rightfully theirs;;;X
EVT_8392002_NAME;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;Soviet occupation of USA;;;X
EVT_8392002_DESC;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;According to the terms of the instrument of surrender, Soviets will not only shape the political future of our country but will retain their troops in coastal states, keeping us in total check. It is painful to imagine so many American citizens under direct communist dictatorship but soon this idea will become reality.;;;X
EVT_8392002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8393000_NAME;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;Formation of United Soviet Socialist States of America;;;X
EVT_8393000_DESC;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;Instrument of surrender stipulated creation of a socialist state in American, modelled directly after the best practices of the Soviet Union. However, it is up to us whether will we insist on enforcing single-party system under the Communist Party of USA, having only token support among the masses, or will we appeal to democratic ideals of the former USA, and let American socialists create a united front of all left-wing parties.;;;X
EVT_8393000_A;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;Invite Communist Party to rule;;;X
EVT_8393000_B;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;;;X
EVT_8393001_NAME;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;Future of the United States;;;X
EVT_8393001_DESC;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;We agreed to keep the democratic facade of the conquered United States but naturally, we will not let capitalists and imperialists still rule those vast lands. Obviously, we should help socialists and social-democrats win elections and reform the American system for the good of farmers and workers. But we are not sure of the local support for those politicians, most of whom have no previous government experience at all. The American populace would surely prefer to see Democrats still in power, with the help of other left-wing representatives, whom all we will surely screen to make sure that no unwanted people make it to the Congress.;;;X
EVT_8393001_A;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;Let Socialists create a united front;;;X
EVT_8393001_B;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;Allow Democrats to stay in power;;;X
EVT_8393002_NAME;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;Division of the United States;;;X
EVT_8393002_DESC;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;Soviets preach counter-imperialism but their troops are apparently not moving out of coastal cities, keeping there their permanent military occupation. Theoritically, they stay there for the reason of stability and geopolitical balance in the region but most evidently, they want to limit even our semi-autonomous control over the most precious industrial and residential centers. Sadly, we cannot oppose it in any way.;;;X
EVT_8393002_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8393003_NAME;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;Communist Party of the United States takes power;;;X
EVT_8393003_DESC;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;The Communist Party USA was a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919. For the first half of the 20th century, the CPUSA was the largest and most influential communist party in the United States. It played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, having a major hand in founding most of the country's first industrial unions (which would later use the McCarran Internal Security Act to expel their Communist members) while also becoming known for opposing racism and fighting for integration in workplaces and communities during the height of the Jim Crow period of U.S. racial segregation. CPUSA, claiming proletarian internationalism (while the U.S. Government called it espionage), sponsored an elaborate intelligence network on behalf of the Soviet Union, involving over 500 members acting as agents.The sections of the CP's International Workers Order meanwhile organized for communism around linguistic and ethnic lines, providing mutual aid and tailored cultural activities to an IWO membership that peaked at 200,000 at its height.;;;X
EVT_8393003_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8393004_NAME;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;Socialist Party of America takes power;;;X
EVT_8393004_DESC;"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";"The Socialist Party of America was a multi-tendency democratic-socialist political party in the United States, formed in 1901 by a merger between the three-year-old Social Democratic Party of America and disaffected elements of the Socialist Labor Party which had split from the main organization in 1899. In the first decades of the 20th century, it drew significant support from many different groups, including trade unionists, progressive social reformers, populist farmers, and immigrant communities. Its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, twice won over 900,000 votes (in 1912 and 1920), while the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials. The party's staunch opposition to American involvement in World War I, although welcomed by many, also led to prominent defections, official repression and vigilante persecution. The organization was further shattered by a factional war over how it should respond to Russia's Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919.\n\nAfter endorsing Robert LaFollette's presidential campaign in 1924, the Socialist Party returned to independent action and experienced modest growth in the early 1930s behind presidential candidate Norman Thomas. After the 1920s, however, the Party's appeal was weakened by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the organization and flexibility of the Communist Party under Earl Browder, and the resurgent labor movement's desire to support sympathetic Democratic Party politicians. A divisive and ultimately-unsuccessful attempt to broaden the party by admitting followers of Leon Trotsky and Jay Lovestone caused the traditional ""Old Guard"" to leave and form the Social Democratic Federation. While the party was always strongly anti-Fascist, as well as anti-Stalinist, the SP's ambivalent attitude towards World War II cost it both internal and external support.";;;X
EVT_8393004_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8393005_NAME;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;Social Liberals from Democratic Party take power;;;X
EVT_8393005_DESC;"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";"Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored social-liberal positions, favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.";;;X
EVT_8393005_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8393006_NAME;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;Dissolution of the United States;;;X
EVT_8393006_DESC;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;According to the decisions of the triumphant party our glorious union will be dissolved and several countries will be carved out of the American territory. In the north, there will remain a rump American state. In the south, there is going to be a return of Confederacy, this time bringing equality to Afro-Americans and just division of arable lands. There will also be a place for a Texan state, once independent creation between United States and Mexico. At last, there are plans to recreate California Republic, a break-away republic of 1840s, to cover Western fringes.;;;X
EVT_8393006_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8394000_NAME;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;Sphere of Influence in America;;;X
EVT_8394000_DESC;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;Due to our prevailing influence over what is left of the United States, we will be able to shape policies of America for many years to come.;;;X
EVT_8394000_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500101_NAME;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;Soviet alliance with Communist China;;;X
EVT_8500101_DESC;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that Soviet Union is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Communist faction in China and even provided them much needed supplies when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Mao. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;;;X
EVT_8500101_A;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;;;X
EVT_8500101_B;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500102_NAME;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;;;X
EVT_8500102_DESC;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Communist brothers caused a notable outcry in the ranks of American administration. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;;;X
EVT_8500102_A;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;;;X
EVT_8500102_B;Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500103_NAME;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;Soviets reject the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500103_DESC;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Soviets did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the Soviets have their war.;;;X
EVT_8500103_A;Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500103_B;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500104_NAME;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;Soviet-Chinese Alliance;;;X
EVT_8500104_DESC;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of American threats, the Soviets upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;;;X
EVT_8500104_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500111_NAME;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;American alliance with Nationalist China;;;X
EVT_8500111_DESC;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;We have just received an urgent report telling us that United States is on the verge of intervention in Chinese Civil War. For many years they provided moral support for Nationalist faction in China and even provided them much needed bank loans when they desperately asked for them. Now their committment is going even further because they offered full military alliance to Chiang. That means that they will support them with their own troops in current and future conflicts, something that will surely topple the current balance of power in the East Asian theatre. Our hands are tied because we are not a side in this war but we can react anyway. What will be our answer?;;;X
EVT_8500111_A;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;Let them forge alliance;;;X
EVT_8500111_B;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500112_NAME;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;Ultimatum for intervention in China;;;X
EVT_8500112_DESC;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;Our offer of help for Chinese Nationalists caused a notable outcry in the ranks of Soviet politburo. Their diplomatic response is harsh and they give us choice: we may undo our decision of alliance with Chinese or they are going to declare war upon us. Their confidence is appalling but is it worthy to go for World War 3 over Chinese problem?;;;X
EVT_8500112_A;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;Leave the matter;;;X
EVT_8500112_B;Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);Ignore ultimatum (considerable risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500113_NAME;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;Americans reject the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500113_DESC;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;The ultimatum that we presented to the Americans did little to make them change their war plans. Vast transport of troops and supplies are already on their way. We should surely react with declaration of war for such a defiance but if we are really afraid we could downplay the threats we gave and let the United States have their war.;;;X
EVT_8500113_A;Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500113_B;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;Really, there was no ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500114_NAME;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;American-Chinese Alliance;;;X
EVT_8500114_DESC;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;In spite of Soviet threats, the Americans upheld their original promised and we are now in full alliance with them. This means they will ensure our victory in the civil war and let us build prosperous China.;;;X
EVT_8500114_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500201_NAME;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;Placement of missiles in Cuba;;;X
EVT_8500201_DESC;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived in May 1962 the idea of countering the United States' growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing its own intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the United States' placement of Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles the United States had installed during April 1962 in Turkey.;;;X
EVT_8500201_A;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;Secretly install missiles;;;X
EVT_8500201_B;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;We won't use Cuba for this;;;X
EVT_8500202_NAME;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;Soviet missiles;;;X
EVT_8500202_DESC;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;Soviet Union, in the name of newly forged ties of friendship, asked us to provide our mountaineous forests as a base for Soviet ballistic missiles. If we agree, we can count on strategic friendship and economic assistance from our Communist brothers. Historically, these missiles allowed the Soviets to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. The Cuban populace readily noticed the arrival and deployment of the missiles and hundreds of reports reached Miami. The Americans mostly decided to ignore them and little effort was made to discover well-hidden missile installations.;;;X
EVT_8500202_A;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;Allow missiles;;;X
EVT_8500202_B;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;We'd rather not;;;X
EVT_8500203_NAME;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;Missiles in Cuba;;;X
EVT_8500203_DESC;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;Soviet Union placed in 1962 ballistic missiles in Cuba to effectively target almost the entire continental United States. The planned arsenal was forty launchers. That was a grave danger for the country as USSR gained true first strike capability with slim chance for our effective retaliation. Historically, the U.S. first obtained photographic evidence of the missiles installed by the Soviets on Cuba on October 14 when a U-2 flight piloted by Major Richard Heyser took 928 pictures, capturing images of what turned out to be an SS-4 construction site at San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río Province, in western Cuba.;;;X
EVT_8500203_A;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;Missiles are spotted;;;X
EVT_8500203_B;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;We don't see anything;;;X
EVT_8500204_NAME;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;Cuban Missile Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500204_DESC;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;On October 15, the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center reviewed the U-2 photographs and identified objects that they interpreted as medium range ballistic missiles. The next morning, Kennedy was shown the U-2 photographs and briefed on the CIA's analysis of the images. The US had no plan in place because US intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:\n\n1.No action.\n2.Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.\n3.Warning: Send a message to Castro to warn him of the grave danger he, and Cuba were in.\n4.Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.\n5.Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.\n6.Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.\n\nThe Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba. Kennedy was skeptical, concluding that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume 'a clear line' to conquer Berlin.;;;X
EVT_8500204_A;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;Perform naval quarantine of Cuba;;;X
EVT_8500204_B;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;;;X
EVT_8500204_C;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;Send grave warnings only;;;X
EVT_8500204_D;Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);Perform air attacks and declare war (High risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500205_NAME;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;American diplomatic protest;;;X
EVT_8500205_DESC;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;Americans could choose many ways of answering the ongoing missile crisis and the Soviets took into account possibility of decisive reply, up to and including military actions. However, those well-camouflaged fears did not materialize and the Americans elected only to send a diplomatic protest. This shows that they don't have political means of exerting real pressure on us, still we may withdraw the nukes if only for the sake of world peace.;;;X
EVT_8500205_A;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;Leave the nukes on Cuba;;;X
EVT_8500205_B;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;Withdraw the missiles;;;X
EVT_8500206_NAME;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;Missiles in Cuba: American intervention;;;X
EVT_8500206_DESC;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;American general staff must have had great influence on the President, as the United States started their invasion of Cuba from land and air, being aware for all the potential repercussions. This is a violation of Cuban independence and preservation of our influence there requires that we respond with full force.;;;X
EVT_8500206_A;Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);Retaliate (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500206_B;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;Flee with missiles;;;X
EVT_8500207_NAME;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;Missiles in Cuba: American quarantine;;;X
EVT_8500207_DESC;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;Kennedy met with members of EXCOMM and other top advisers throughout October 21, considering two remaining options: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases, or a naval blockade of Cuba. Robert McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.;;;X
EVT_8500207_A;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;Continue convoys;;;X
EVT_8500207_B;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;Call off convoys;;;X
EVT_8500207_C;Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);Kennedy thought wrong (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500208_NAME;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;Crisis continues;;;X
EVT_8500208_DESC;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and had made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion, along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily, which was assumed.;;;X
EVT_8500208_A;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;Propose negotiations;;;X
EVT_8500208_B;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;;;X
EVT_8500208_C;We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500209_NAME;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;Negotiations in Cuban Missile Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500209_DESC;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;At 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, John A. Scali of ABC News had lunch with Aleksandr Fomin, a Soviet spy, at Fomin's request. Fomin noted, 'War seems about to break out,' and asked Scali to use his contacts to talk to his 'high-level friends' at the State Department to see if the U.S. would be interested in a diplomatic solution.;;;X
EVT_8500209_A;Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal of American missiles (small risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500209_B;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;Demand economic concessions;;;X
EVT_8500209_C;Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);Demand withdrawal from Berlin (moderate risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500209_D;Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);Nothing can buy our decision (considerable risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500210_NAME;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;;;X
EVT_8500210_DESC;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;The message from Khrushchev was surprisingly light on demands and Soviets seemed keen on keeping world at peace. They agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba only in exchange for money to cover costs of transport and in small part a great embarassment for USSR.;;;X
EVT_8500210_A;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;;;X
EVT_8500210_B;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;;;X
EVT_8500211_NAME;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;;;X
EVT_8500211_DESC;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;Throughout the whole cold war, Berlin was one of flashpoints of possible conflict, as Soviets pressed hard to have it included in their zone of occupation and later, German Democratic Republic. Now when the time of negotiations came, the fears of Americans materialized as Soviets are asking for reunification of Berlin under East Germany.;;;X
EVT_8500211_A;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;;;X
EVT_8500211_B;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;Disagree;;;X
EVT_8500211_C;We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500212_NAME;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;Khrushchev's Proposal;;;X
EVT_8500212_DESC;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;At 9:00 am EDT on October 27, Radio Moscow began broadcasting a message from Khrushchev. The message offered a new trade, that the missiles on Cuba would be removed in exchange for the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. At 10:00 am EDT, the executive committee met again to discuss the situation and came to the conclusion that the change in the message was due to internal debate between Khrushchev and other party officials in the Kremlin.;;;X
EVT_8500212_A;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;Agree to the trade;;;X
EVT_8500212_B;We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);We had enough, it's war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500213_NAME;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500213_DESC;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started.;;;X
EVT_8500213_A;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;An embarassment for a superpower;;;X
EVT_8500214_NAME;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500214_DESC;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;The practical effect of this Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact was that it effectively strengthened Castro's position in Cuba, guaranteeing that the US would not invade Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev only placed the missiles in Cuba to get Kennedy to remove the missiles from Italy and Turkey and that the Soviets had no intention of resorting to nuclear war if they were out-gunned by the Americans.\n\nBecause the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles from NATO bases in Southern Italy and Turkey was not made public at the time, Khrushchev appeared to have lost the conflict and become weakened. The perception was that Kennedy had won the contest between the superpowers and Khrushchev had been humiliated. This is not entirely the case as both Kennedy and Khrushchev took every step to avoid full conflict despite the pressures of their governments. Khrushchev held power for another two years.;;;X
EVT_8500214_A;That was close;That was close;That was close;That was close;That was close;That was close;That was close;That was close;;;X
EVT_8500215_NAME;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;Aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500215_DESC;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;Cuba perceived Soviet agreement with Americans, concerning missiles already placed on Cuba, as a partial betrayal by the Soviets, given that decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of Guantanamo, were not addressed. This caused Cuban-Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion.;;;X
EVT_8500215_A;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;We had good intentions;;;X
EVT_8500301_NAME;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;Aswan High Dam;;;X
EVT_8500301_DESC;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;Building a second dam in Aswan, designed to withstand huge amount of water, required investment bigger than Egypt could afford. Western world was ready to provide some help but Nasser has chosen much more risky path - the funds came from the Soviets as well as planed nationalization of Suez Canal, which was sure to anger USA.;;;X
EVT_8500301_A;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;Nationalize Suez Canal and build huge Aswan Dam;;;X
EVT_8500301_B;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;Ask for loans and build smaller Aswan Dam;;;X
EVT_8500302_NAME;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;Nationalization of Suez Canal;;;X
EVT_8500302_DESC;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal. Americans were reluctant to provide far-reaching support but France and United Kingdom were determined to take military action to create fait accompli, thanks to foreseen Israeli engagement.;;;X
EVT_8500302_A;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;Covertly prepare Israel for the conflict;;;X
EVT_8500302_B;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;Openly prepare Israel for the conflict;;;X
EVT_8500302_C;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;Let the matter fall;;;X
EVT_8500303_NAME;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;Operation Kadesh: open support;;;X
EVT_8500303_DESC;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;;;X
EVT_8500303_A;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;;;X
EVT_8500303_B;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;;;X
EVT_8500304_NAME;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;Operation Kadesh: covert support;;;X
EVT_8500304_DESC;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;Israel was a valuable ally in the Middle East that might deal a deadly blow to the Nasser's regime. Supported by the French and the British, Israeli pushed west to capture Sinai, Suez or maybe even Cairo.;;;X
EVT_8500304_A;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;Invade!;;;X
EVT_8500304_B;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;It's too risky;;;X
EVT_8500305_NAME;Suez War;Suez War;Suez War;Suez War;Suez War;Suez War;Suez War;Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500305_DESC;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;Egypt was determined to defend the Sinai Peninsula and the Canal or, at very least, slow the advance and wait for enraged international community to condemn Israeli invasion.;;;X
EVT_8500305_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500311_NAME;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;Reaction to the Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500311_DESC;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;Operation Kadesh, an Israeli military action aimed at taking control of the newly nationalized Suez Canal, Gaza, and parts of Sinai, was highly successful for the invaders from a military point of view, but was a disaster from a political point of view. There's much pressure on Israel to withdraw from their conquered territories unless we boldly take their side.;;;X
EVT_8500311_A;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;Urge them to quit;;;X
EVT_8500311_B;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;Support Israeli advance;;;X
EVT_8500312_NAME;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;America meddles in Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500312_DESC;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;In the United States many Democratic and Republican politicians alike openly supported the British, French and Israelis, including the Senate leader Lyndon B. Johnson who urged Eisenhower to give his full support. The Congress is ready to give them green light.;;;X
EVT_8500312_A;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;Send an ultimatum and support Egypt;;;X
EVT_8500312_B;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;Support Egypt;;;X
EVT_8500312_C;File a protest;File a protest;File a protest;File a protest;File a protest;File a protest;File a protest;File a protest;;;X
EVT_8500313_NAME;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;Soviet ultimatum for Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500313_DESC;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to Egypt and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;;;X
EVT_8500313_A;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;;;X
EVT_8500313_B;Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);Let them have the war (high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500314_NAME;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500314_DESC;In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';In spite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.';;;X
EVT_8500314_A;Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500314_B;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;;;X
EVT_8500315_NAME;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;American assistance in Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500315_DESC;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;In spite of possible diplomatic repercussions, USA decided to support our cause against Egyptians to help us retake the channel.;;;X
EVT_8500315_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500316_NAME;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;Soviet assistance in Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500316_DESC;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;In view of rising diplomatic tensions, Soviets are providing us limited defense support.;;;X
EVT_8500316_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500320_NAME;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500320_DESC;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;Advance of Israeli forces was not swift enough as their advance was stopped and condemnation from the international community prompted them to halt their maneuvers and seek for peaceful resolution.;;;X
EVT_8500320_A;Cease fire;Cease fire;Cease fire;Cease fire;Cease fire;Cease fire;Cease fire;Cease fire;;;X
EVT_8500320_B;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;We will not be intimidated;;;X
EVT_8500321_NAME;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;Conclusion of the Suez War;;;X
EVT_8500321_DESC;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;Israeli forces were surprisingly quick to advance through the deserts and topple the Nasser's regime. British and French stance of making a quick but deadly attack was successful and international community will not be in position to make demands.;;;X
EVT_8500321_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500322_NAME;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;Suez War is won;;;X
EVT_8500322_DESC;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;Nasser's plan was bold but paid off. Egyptian defence was strong enough to withstand Israeli forces and now international mediation will ensure that we will have the right to keep Suez as ours.;;;X
EVT_8500322_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500323_NAME;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;Suez War is lost;;;X
EVT_8500323_DESC;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;Nasser's plan was bold but turned against himself. Israelis were deadly effective and our own power base too small to effectively wage the war. Nasser will face a martial court while the new government will once again ally itself with the Western powers.;;;X
EVT_8500323_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500401_NAME;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500401_DESC;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;The First Taiwan Strait Crisis was a short armed conflict that took place between the two Chinese states. The PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands, forcing the ROC to abandon the Tachen Islands. The Matsu and Quemoy island groups, situated in the Taiwan strait between the main island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, were the Nationalists' first line of defense against the Communist Party of China.;;;X
EVT_8500401_A;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;Begin artillery bombardment;;;X
EVT_8500401_B;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;Stay at peace;;;X
EVT_8500402_NAME;American reaction;American reaction;American reaction;American reaction;American reaction;American reaction;American reaction;American reaction;;;X
EVT_8500402_DESC;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;On September 12, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons  against mainland China. Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict. However, on December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955.;;;X
EVT_8500402_A;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;Propose defense treaty;;;X
EVT_8500402_B;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;;;X
EVT_8500403_NAME;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty;;;X
EVT_8500403_DESC;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;The treaty was signed on December 2, 1954 and came into force on March 3, 1955. It was limited in application to the defense of Taiwan and the Pescadores only. Kinmen and Matsu were not protected by this treaty. Therefore, the US stood aside during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. This treaty also prevented Republic of China from initiating any military action against mainland China, since only Taiwan and Pescadores are included and unilateral military actions were not supported.;;;X
EVT_8500403_A;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;Accept defense treaty;;;X
EVT_8500403_B;No thanks;No thanks;No thanks;No thanks;No thanks;No thanks;No thanks;No thanks;;;X
EVT_8500404_NAME;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500404_DESC;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;Failure of Republic of China to get American guarantees of protection means that we have free hands to finish Taiwan Strait Crisis once for all.;;;X
EVT_8500404_A;It's war then;It's war then;It's war then;It's war then;It's war then;It's war then;It's war then;It's war then;;;X
EVT_8500404_B;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;Let's leave them in peace;;;X
EVT_8500405_NAME;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;Continuation of 1954 Taiwan Strait Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500405_DESC;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;;;X
EVT_8500405_A;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;;;X
EVT_8500405_B;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;;;X
EVT_8500406_NAME;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500406_DESC;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;American guarantee means that we have our hands tied in the ongoing crisis. Moving further in our hostile actions will result in war not only with Chinese Nationalists but with United States as well.;;;X
EVT_8500406_A;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;Bombardment and air clashes;;;X
EVT_8500406_B;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;;;X
EVT_8500406_C;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;All-out war;;;X
EVT_8500407_NAME;Shelled island;Shelled island;Shelled island;Shelled island;Shelled island;Shelled island;Shelled island;Shelled island;;;X
EVT_8500407_DESC;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;The PRC fired around 450,000 shells at the Quemoy islands in the conflict. The shells have become a natural resource of steel for the local economy. Since the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, Quemoy has become famous for its production of cleavers made from PRC bomb shells. A blacksmith in Quemoy generally produces 60 cleavers from one bomb shell and tourists often purchase Kinmen knives as souvenirs together with other local products.;;;X
EVT_8500407_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500411_NAME;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;American defense of Taiwan;;;X
EVT_8500411_DESC;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;On December 2, 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to a mutual defense treaty which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9, 1955. Nationalist China is now protected and we should support their independence.;;;X
EVT_8500411_A;Take their side!;Take their side!;Take their side!;Take their side!;Take their side!;Take their side!;Take their side!;Take their side!;;;X
EVT_8500411_B;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;Call for peace but do not act;;;X
EVT_8500412_NAME;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500412_DESC;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they may even undertake offensive action. Shall we stand by mainland China to defend the most populous communist country in the world against capitalists?;;;X
EVT_8500412_A;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;;;X
EVT_8500412_B;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500413_NAME;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;Soviet ultimatum for Taiwan Straits Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500413_DESC;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;Soviet Union sends an ultimatum, giving full support to People's Republic of China and saying that we are to withdraw our forces, otherwise it is going to be war.;;;X
EVT_8500413_A;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;Back off;;;X
EVT_8500413_B;Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500414_NAME;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500414_DESC;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;;;X
EVT_8500414_A;So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);So it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500414_B;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;;;X
EVT_8500415_NAME;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;American intervention in Taiwan Straits Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500415_DESC;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;Americans fulfilled their promise to act upon communist intervention and defend Taiwan. Now they offered to undertake offensive action. Shall we accept their assistance and push red menace out of our great country?;;;X
EVT_8500415_A;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;Together will we fight for one China!;;;X
EVT_8500415_B;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;We will manage alone;;;X
EVT_8500420_NAME;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;;;X
EVT_8500420_DESC;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;After withdrawal of support from the Americans, we are no longer in military alliance with them.;;;X
EVT_8500420_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500501_NAME;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500501_DESC;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;Both the Yugoslav and Albanian communist states supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. The KKE kept an open line of communication with the Soviet Communist Party, and its leader Nikos Zachariadis had visited Moscow on more than one occasion. The Soviet Union was backing the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council, but was determined not to interfere further in the Greek Civil War. Certain western historians believe it was not part of Stalin's strategy to conduct a war against the Western Allies in Greece, and the Soviets gave little direct support to the KKE campaign.;;;X
EVT_8500501_A;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;Ask Stalin;;;X
EVT_8500501_B;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;Ask Tito;;;X
EVT_8500501_C;Fight alone;Fight alone;Fight alone;Fight alone;Fight alone;Fight alone;Fight alone;Fight alone;;;X
EVT_8500502_NAME;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;;;X
EVT_8500502_DESC;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Eventually, Yugoslav option won, making it possible to support communists from behind the border.;;;X
EVT_8500502_A;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;Show them our support!;;;X
EVT_8500502_B;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;;;X
EVT_8500503_NAME;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;Greek communists ask for support;;;X
EVT_8500503_DESC;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter, from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE had thus to choose between its loyalty to USSR, and its relations with its closest ally. Inevitably, after some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Zachariadis, chose the way of USSR not this of the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British.;;;X
EVT_8500503_A;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;;;X
EVT_8500503_B;Minor support;Minor support;Minor support;Minor support;Minor support;Minor support;Minor support;Minor support;;;X
EVT_8500503_C;Major support;Major support;Major support;Major support;Major support;Major support;Major support;Major support;;;X
EVT_8500503_D;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;Propose military intervention;;;X
EVT_8500504_NAME;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;Soviets help Greek communists;;;X
EVT_8500504_DESC;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union is planning to take the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declare war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;;;X
EVT_8500504_A;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500504_B;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;;;X
EVT_8500505_NAME;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;;;X
EVT_8500505_DESC;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we decide to declare war on Greece we must be ready for global war.;;;X
EVT_8500505_A;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;;;X
EVT_8500505_B;Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (very high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500506_NAME;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500506_DESC;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;;;X
EVT_8500506_A;Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500506_B;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;;;X
EVT_8500509_NAME;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;Greece is forced out of alliance with USA;;;X
EVT_8500509_DESC;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;We turned out to be a mere pawn in hands of great superpowers. USA sacrificed our independence because of the fear of war with Soviet Union.;;;X
EVT_8500509_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500510_NAME;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;;;X
EVT_8500510_DESC;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;;;X
EVT_8500510_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8500510_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8500511_NAME;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;Civil War goes hot;;;X
EVT_8500511_DESC;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;After a brief interlude when both sides of the conflict hoped for political resolution, incidents intensified and peace was becoming harder to maintain. Fighting resumed in March 1946, as a gang of 30 ex-ELAS members, most of whom were persecuted, attacked a police station in the village of Litochoro. The next day, the official KKE paper’s coversheet announced, 'Authorities and gangs fabricate alleged communist attacks'. Contemporaneously, armed bands of ELAS veterans infiltrated Greece through mountainous regions near the Yugoslav and Albanian borders;;;X
EVT_8500511_A;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;It is time for war!;;;X
EVT_8500511_B;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;The time is not ripe;;;X
EVT_8500520_NAME;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500520_DESC;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. As we drew closer to the specific terms of this help, our friends wavered, not sure about our ability to win the civil war. After much deliberation on their side, we received some war materiel and armed men to support us but it's less than we hoped for.;;;X
EVT_8500520_A;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;Still it's better than nothing;;;X
EVT_8500521_NAME;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;Foreign support in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500521_DESC;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;After our plead for support in our cause the revolutionary spirit was sparked in the Eastern Bloc and many countries pledged their commitment and support. A dream of enlarging the Eastern Bloc to cover also the lands of Greece, the cradle of democracy, was a matter of ambition. Thanks to this, we receive additional troops, some of them especially trained to fight in mountaineous terrain like this of Greece.;;;X
EVT_8500521_A;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;It will help us greatly;;;X
EVT_8500522_NAME;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;Soviet Union intervenes in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500522_DESC;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;Our political leaders were very forward-looking when they asked Stalin to support communist forces in Greek Civil War. The Generalissimus not only promised to send us troops but laid at stake security of the whole Eastern Bloc and offered us military alliance to back us with full power of mighty Soviet Union. ;;;X
EVT_8500522_A;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;To arms, brotherly comrades!;;;X
EVT_8500522_B;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;Better not;;;X
EVT_8500523_NAME;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;;;X
EVT_8500523_DESC;"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";;;X
EVT_8500523_A;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;Help defend birthplace of democracy;;;X
EVT_8500523_B;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;Let them fight their war alone;;;X
EVT_8500524_NAME;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;Truman Plan for Greece;;;X
EVT_8500524_DESC;"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";"In 1947 the Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men, and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the Army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent 85 million pounds in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden; President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the government of Greece against communist pressure. This began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US Ambassador advised the King on important issues, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister.";;;X
EVT_8500524_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500530_NAME;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;Partisans in Agrinion;;;X
EVT_8500530_DESC;"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";"Rural peasants were caught in the crossfire. When DSE partisans entered a village asking for supplies, citizens were either supportive (years previously, EAM could count on 2 million members across the whole country) or could not resist. When the national army arrived at the same village, citizens who had supplied the partisans were immediately denounced as communist sympathizers, and were usually imprisoned or exiled. Rural areas also suffered as a result of tactics dictated to the National Army by US advisers; a very efficient strategy applied during the Greek Civil War, as well as later in the Vietnam and Korean wars, was the evacuation of villages under the pretext that they were under direct threat of communist attack. This would deprive supplies and recruits to the partisans, while simultaneously raising antipathy towards them.\n\nStill, in spite of these problems, in good times of communist guerilla, peasants flocked under their banners in considerable numbers.";;;X
EVT_8500530_A;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;Form a new division;;;X
EVT_8500530_B;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;Save them for reinforcements;;;X
EVT_8500531_NAME;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;Partisans in Kozani;;;X
EVT_8500532_NAME;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;Partisans in Kavala;;;X
EVT_8500533_NAME;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;Partisans in Larissa;;;X
EVT_8500534_NAME;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;Partisans in Ioannina;;;X
EVT_8500535_NAME;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;Partisans in Metsovo;;;X
EVT_8500540_NAME;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;Communist guerilla weakens;;;X
EVT_8500540_DESC;"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";"In the summer of 1948, communist forces started to suffer huge defeats; lacking ammunition support from DSE headquarters, and having failed to capture ammunition depots belonging to the National Army, its pockets of resistance were doomed. The National Army's strategic plan, codenamed 'Peristera' (the Greek word for 'dove') had proven successful. A number of other civilians were sent to prison camps as helpers of the communists. Following this defeat in southern Greece, DSE continued to operate in Northern Greece and some islands, but as a greatly weakened force facing significant obstacles both politically and militarily.\n\nAt the same time, the National Army found a talented commander in General Alexander Papagos, commander of the Greek Army during the Greco-Italian War. In August 1949, Papagos launched a major counter-offensive against DSE forces in northern Greece, code-named 'Operation Torch'. The campaign was a victory for the National Army, and resulted in heavy losses for the DSE. The DSE army was now no longer able to sustain resistance in set piece battles.";;;X
EVT_8500540_A;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;We lost our chance;;;X
EVT_8500541_NAME;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500541_DESC;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of great victory and the banner of hammer and sickle flies over the ancient lands of Greece.;;;X
EVT_8500541_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8500542_NAME;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;Communist victory in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500542_DESC;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;Greek Civil War initiated a large international movement of support for communists in Greece, marked birth of guerilla warfare geniuses on their side and let them have enough luck to win battles over most important cities of Greece. Now communist control all the key points in mainland Greece. The king already fled Athens and vowed to form government on Crete under Allied naval protection. For us, it is a day of sorrow to watch the banner of hammer and sickle loom over the ancient lands of Greece.;;;X
EVT_8500542_A;A sad day;A sad day;A sad day;A sad day;A sad day;A sad day;A sad day;A sad day;;;X
EVT_8500550_NAME;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;Soviets take part in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500550_DESC;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;Soviet Union already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USSR?;;;X
EVT_8500550_A;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500550_B;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;;;X
EVT_8500551_NAME;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;USA stands by Greece;;;X
EVT_8500551_DESC;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;United States won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;;;X
EVT_8500551_A;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;;;X
EVT_8500551_B;Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500552_NAME;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500552_DESC;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USSR decided to ignore our ultimatum.;;;X
EVT_8500552_A;Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500552_B;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;;;X
EVT_8500553_NAME;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;Americans take part in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8500553_DESC;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;United States already took the side of communist partisans in Greek Civil War and declared war on this country. Shall we stand by Greece and issue an ultimatum to USA?;;;X
EVT_8500553_A;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;Issue ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500553_B;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;Leave Greece alone;;;X
EVT_8500554_NAME;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;USSR stands by Greece;;;X
EVT_8500554_DESC;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;Soviet Union won't take our intervention in Greece on the communist side lightly. If we do not withdraw from Greece we must be ready for global war.;;;X
EVT_8500554_A;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;Restrain ourselves;;;X
EVT_8500554_B;Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);Let us have the war (high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500555_NAME;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;USA ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500555_DESC;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;Despite of possible grave consequences, USA decided to ignore our ultimatum.;;;X
EVT_8500555_A;Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500555_B;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;After all, better not;;;X
EVT_8500601_NAME;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;Berlin Airlift;;;X
EVT_8500601_DESC;After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';After announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin and delayed Western and German freight shipments. Berlin stood in front of possibility of starvation. Transporting supplies would require an airlift that really worked. General Curtis LeMay, commander of United States Air Forces in Europe, asked 'Can you haul coal?', replied 'We can haul anything.';;;X
EVT_8500601_A;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;Organize airlift;;;X
EVT_8500601_B;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;Relinquish control over Berlin;;;X
EVT_8500602_NAME;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;;;X
EVT_8500602_DESC;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes, obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night.;;;X
EVT_8500602_A;The action is a success;The action is a success;The action is a success;The action is a success;The action is a success;The action is a success;The action is a success;The action is a success;;;X
EVT_8500602_B;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;The action is a failure;;;X
EVT_8500603_NAME;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;Reaction to Berlin Airlift;;;X
EVT_8500603_DESC;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.;;;X
EVT_8500603_A;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;Hamper airlifts and try to organize a putsch;;;X
EVT_8500603_B;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;Hamper airlifts;;;X
EVT_8500603_C;Let them free;Let them free;Let them free;Let them free;Let them free;Let them free;Let them free;Let them free;;;X
EVT_8500603_D;Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);Fire at transport planes (considerable risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500604_NAME;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;Difficulties of Berlin Airlift;;;X
EVT_8500604_DESC;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;Events were turning against the Soviets. As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on 1 August, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.\n\nThroughout the airlift Soviet and German communists subjected the hard-pressed West Berliners to sustained psychological warfare. In radio broadcasts, they relentlessly proclaimed that all Berlin came under Soviet authority and predicted the imminent abandonment of the city by the Western occupying powers.mThe Soviets also harassed members of the democratically elected city-wide administration, which had to conduct its business in the city hall located in the Soviet sector.;;;X
EVT_8500604_A;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;The action continues to be a success;;;X
EVT_8500604_B;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;Logistic issues are too hard to manage;;;X
EVT_8500605_NAME;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;Communist putsch in Berlin;;;X
EVT_8500605_DESC;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;In the autumn of 1948 it became impossible for the non-Communist majority in Greater Berlin's city-wide parliament elected – as provided by the provisional constitution of Berlin – to attend sessions, within the Soviet sector. Communist-led mobs repeatedly invaded municipal buildings, interrupted the parliament's sessions, and physically menaced its non-Communist members. The Kremlin organized an attempted putsch for control of all of Berlin through a 6 September takeover of the city hall by SED members.\n\nThree days later RIAS Radio urged Berliners to protest against the actions of the communists. On 9 September 1948 a crowd of 500,000 people gathered at the Brandenburg Gate, next to the ruined Reichstag in the British sector. The Airlift was working so far, but many West Berliners feared that the Allies would eventually abandon them to the Soviets. They needed reassurance that their sacrifices would not be for nothing. Then SPD city councillor Ernst Reuter took the microphone and pleaded for his city, 'You peoples of the world, you people of America, of England, of France, look on this city, and recognize that this city, this people, must not be abandoned — cannot be abandoned!' The crowd surged towards the eastern sector and someone ripped down the Red Flag from the Brandenburg Gate. Soviet military police responded, killing one. Never before had so many Berliners gathered. The resonance worldwide was enormous, notably in the United States, where a strong feeling of solidarity with Berliners reinforced a determination not to abandon them.;;;X
EVT_8500605_A;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;Putsch fails miserably;;;X
EVT_8500605_B;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;The masses turn to Soviets;;;X
EVT_8500606_NAME;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;Berlin Airlift gets hot;;;X
EVT_8500606_DESC;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;We received reports of our transport planes being fired upon, which means we cannot continue the airlift any longer. If we want to support Berlin further, we must do it by force!;;;X
EVT_8500606_A;Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);Send interceptors this time (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500606_B;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;Stop the Airlift;;;X
EVT_8500607_NAME;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;Berlin blockade fails;;;X
EVT_8500607_DESC;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;By April 1949 airlift operations were running smoothly. On April 21 the tonnage of supplies flown into the city exceeded that previously brought by rail. The Berlin Airlift had finally succeeded, and appeared able to operate indefinitely.;;;X
EVT_8500607_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500608_NAME;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;;;X
EVT_8500608_DESC;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;;;X
EVT_8500608_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500609_NAME;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;End of Berlin Blockade;;;X
EVT_8500609_DESC;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;It has been argued that the events of the Berlin Blockade are proof that the Allies conducted their affairs within a rational framework, since they were keen to avoid war.;;;X
EVT_8500609_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500701_NAME;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;Emigration from Berlin;;;X
EVT_8500701_DESC;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;With the closing of the Inner German border officially in 1952, the border in Berlin remained considerably more accessible than the rest. The 3.5 million East Germans that had left by 1961 totaled approximately 20 percent of the entire East German population. The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that closing this loophole was imperative.;;;X
EVT_8500701_A;Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);Send an ultimatum to demilitarize Berlin (very small chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500701_B;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;Let the case rest;;;X
EVT_8500702_NAME;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;Reaction to Berlin demilitarization ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500702_DESC;As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, US President John F. Kennedy in a speech delivered on nationwide television the night of 25 July reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight. But he announced that he would ask Congress for additional military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. Kennedy proclaimed, 'We seek peace, but we shall not surrender.';;;X
EVT_8500702_A;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;We shall not surrender;;;X
EVT_8500702_B;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;We'll sacrifice Berlin for guaranteed peace;;;X
EVT_8500702_C;We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);We won't be threatened! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500703_NAME;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;Decision to close off West Berlin;;;X
EVT_8500703_DESC;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;At midnight the army, police, and units of the East German army began to close the border and by morning on Sunday August 13, 1961 the border to West Berlin had been shut. East German troops and workers installed barbed wire entanglements and fences along the 156 km around the three western sectors and the 43 km which actually divided West and East Berlin. Approximately 32 000 combat and engineer troops were used.;;;X
EVT_8500703_A;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;Build the wall!;;;X
EVT_8500703_B;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;Berlin will remain open;;;X
EVT_8500704_NAME;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;East Berlin is off limits;;;X
EVT_8500704_DESC;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;The four powers governing Berlin had agreed at the 1945 Potsdam Conference that Allied personnel would not be stopped by German police in any sector of Berlin. But on 22 October 1961, just two months after the construction of the Wall, the US Chief of Mission in West Berlin, E. Allan Lightner, was stopped in his car while crossing at Checkpoint Charlie to go to a theater in East Berlin.\n\nClay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;;;X
EVT_8500704_A;Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);Try to access it anyway (very small chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500704_B;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8500705_NAME;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;Access to East Berlin;;;X
EVT_8500705_DESC;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;Clay sent an American diplomat, Albert Hemsing, to probe the border. While probing in a diplomatic vehicle, Hemsing was stopped by East German transport police asking to see his passport. Then the Military Police escorted the diplomatic car as it drove into East Berlin and the shocked GDR police got out of the way. The car continued and the soldiers returned to West Berlin.;;;X
EVT_8500705_A;Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);Send the tanks to the border! (very small chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500705_B;Do not react;Do not react;Do not react;Do not react;Do not react;Do not react;Do not react;Do not react;;;X
EVT_8500705_C;Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);Send the tanks beyond the border! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500706_NAME;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;;;X
EVT_8500706_DESC;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;Immediately after one more incursion of an American diplomat into East Berlin, 33 Soviet tanks drove to the Brandenburg Gate. Ten of these tanks continued to Friedrichstraße, and stopped just 50 to 100 metres from the checkpoint on the Soviet side of the sector boundary.;;;X
EVT_8500706_A;Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);Do not retreat but propose peaceful resolution (very small chance of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500706_B;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8500706_C;Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500707_NAME;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;Armoured standoff;;;X
EVT_8500707_DESC;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;The US tanks turned back towards the checkpoint, stopping an equal distance from it on the American side of the boundary. From 27 October 1961 at 17:00 until 28 October 1961 at about 11:00, the respective troops faced each other. Meanwhile Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future, and the Berlin Wall question, in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first.;;;X
EVT_8500707_A;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;Accept peaceful resolution;;;X
EVT_8500707_B;Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);Fire at will! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500708_NAME;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;Resolution of 1961 Berlin Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500708_DESC;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;Kennedy offered to go easy over Berlin in the future in return for the Soviets removing their tanks first. The Soviets agreed. In reality Kennedy was pragmatic concerning the Wall: 'It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war'. A Soviet tank moved about 5 metres backwards first;;;X
EVT_8500708_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500800_NAME;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;Preparations for the Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500800_DESC;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;The North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.\n\nIn comparison, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.;;;X
EVT_8500800_A;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;There will be one Korea;;;X
EVT_8500800_B;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;The peninsula will remain divided;;;X
EVT_8500801_NAME;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;Tensions in Korea intensify;;;X
EVT_8500801_DESC;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;In contrast to well-equipped and numerous army of North Korea, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time, but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.\n\nIn comparison, the North Korean Army launched the 'Fatherland Liberation War' with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea. Although each navy consisted of only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.;;;X
EVT_8500801_A;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;Will we manage to defend ourselves?;;;X
EVT_8500802_NAME;Korean War;Korean War;Korean War;Korean War;Korean War;Korean War;Korean War;Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500802_DESC;"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";"After the US missions had left the People's Republic of China, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan volunteered to remain and conduct spy operations. Afterward, he and a team of indigenous personnel then escaped China in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa. His team delivered the intelligence to headquarters that invasion was imminent. Thirteen days later on 25 June 1950, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel border and invaded South Korea. Mackiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.\n\nUnder the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the 'bandit traitor Syngman Rhee', had crossed the border first, and that they would arrest and execute Rhee. Both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes and each continually staged raids across the 38th parallel border.";;;X
EVT_8500802_A;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;;;X
EVT_8500803_NAME;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;Reaction to the outbreak of Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500803_DESC;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;When North Korea attacked its neighbor, the Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.\n\nOne facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, '...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected'. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea directly as a national interest, its proximity to Japan pushed South Korea to the fore. The United States wanted to shore up Japan to make it a viable counterweight against the Soviet Union and China, and Korea was seen as integral to that end.\n\nIn Truman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. The UN Security council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The decision to commit ground troops and to intervene eventually became viable when a communiqué was received on 27 June from the Soviet Union that alluded it would not move against US forces in Korea.;;;X
EVT_8500803_A;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;Send supplies and military advisors;;;X
EVT_8500803_B;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;Risk full intervention;;;X
EVT_8500803_C;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;Completely ignore the conflict;;;X
EVT_8500804_NAME;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;American intervention in Korea;;;X
EVT_8500804_DESC;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;In Truman's mind, the aggression of North Korea, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made, the difficult part was how. No matter what the outcome of United Nations vote was, Americans wanted to support ROK defense as much as it was possible without enraging their communist allies.;;;X
EVT_8500804_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500805_NAME;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;Reaction to American involvement in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500805_DESC;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;In order to enlist Stalin's support on the North Korean side, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai traveled to Stalin's summer resort on the Black Sea on 10 October. Stalin initially agreed to send military equipment and ammunition, but warned Zhou that the USSR's air force would need two or three months to prepare any operations. In a subsequent meeting, Stalin told Zhou that he would only provide China with equipment on a credit basis, and that the Soviet air force would only operate over Chinese airspace, and only after an undisclosed period of time. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;;;X
EVT_8500805_A;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;Issue ultimatum to end direct intervention;;;X
EVT_8500805_B;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;Overlook American help and send our own assistance;;;X
EVT_8500805_C;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;Do nothing;;;X
EVT_8500806_NAME;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;Soviet ultimatum over Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500806_DESC;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;After we pledged our direct support for ROK forces in their struggle against better-prepared North, Soviet Union awoke from its passivity in this matter and issued an ultimatum forcing us to withdraw our direct military help. Otherwise, there is a high probability that this conflict will escalate into the worldwide conflict against USSR.;;;X
EVT_8500806_A;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8500806_B;Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);Fight! (high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500807_NAME;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;Americans ignore our ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500807_DESC;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;Even though we used the most grave threats in our ultimatum, United States took the risk to destabilize frail worldwide balance of power and are carrying out their intervention in Korea. Now, shall we turn our promise into action?;;;X
EVT_8500807_A;Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500807_B;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;;;X
EVT_8500808_NAME;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;American offer of alliance;;;X
EVT_8500808_DESC;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;Americans, fearing of spread of communism in East Asia, decided to offer us full support, sending us troops and inviting us to military alliance. This will surely strenghten our war potential greatly and enable us to fend off communist assault!;;;X
EVT_8500808_A;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;Onwards, together!;;;X
EVT_8500808_B;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;We fear diplomatic repercussions;;;X
EVT_8500809_NAME;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;Soviet support in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500809_DESC;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;Historically, Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Mao did not find Soviet air support especially useful, as the fighting was going to take place on the south side of the Yalu. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Yet, assistance of Soviet advisors was helpful and a lot of Soviet Air Force pilots flew missions for the North to learn the West's aerial combat techniques.;;;X
EVT_8500809_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500810_NAME;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;Chinese involvement in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500810_DESC;"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that 'Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question'. Thus, via neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.\n\n1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";;;X
EVT_8500810_A;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;Intervene on behalf of Kim Il Sung!;;;X
EVT_8500810_B;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;Leave them for themselves;;;X
EVT_8500811_NAME;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;Chinese support in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500811_DESC;"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";"After United Nations pushed back the North Korean assault, Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao to request Chinese military intervention. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. Immediately on his return to Beijing on 18 October 1950, Zhou met with Mao Zedong, Peng Dehuai, and Gao Gang, and the group ordered two hundred thousand Chinese troops to enter North Korea, which they did on 25 October.\n\nUN aerial reconnaissance had difficulty sighting PVA units in daytime, because their march and bivouac discipline minimized aerial detection. The PVA marched 'dark-to-dark' (19:00–03:00), and aerial camouflage was deployed. Meanwhile, General MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea, and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He concluded that, although half of forces gathered in Manchuria might cross south, 'if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter' without air force protection.\n\nAfter secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950; deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan. The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the Chinese unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory.";;;X
EVT_8500811_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8500820_NAME;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500820_DESC;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;Thanks to support of our communist brothers and our outstanding military discipline, we managed to crush corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of communism and rejoice over reunification of our nation under the red banner!;;;X
EVT_8500820_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8500821_NAME;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;Victory in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500821_DESC;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;Thanks to support of the free world and courage of our soldiers, defending freedom of their country, we managed to crush violent regime of Kim Il Sung and now we possess the whole Korean peninsula. It is an opportunity to claim clear superiority of nationalism and rejoice over reunification of our nation!;;;X
EVT_8500821_A;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;Hooray!;;;X
EVT_8500822_NAME;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500822_DESC;"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";;;X
EVT_8500822_A;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;;;X
EVT_8500822_B;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;;;X
EVT_8500823_NAME;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;Stalemate in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8500823_DESC;"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong.\n\nThe on again, off again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong (southern North Korea), then relocated at Panmunjom (bordering the Koreas). A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.\n\nIn 1952 the US elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, US, and Joint UN Commands.";;;X
EVT_8500823_A;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;Enter armistice talks;;;X
EVT_8500823_B;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;Continue the war no matter the costs;;;X
EVT_8500825_NAME;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;;;X
EVT_8500825_DESC;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;;;X
EVT_8500825_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500826_NAME;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;Postwar demobilization;;;X
EVT_8500826_DESC;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;According to U.S. estimates, about one million South Koreans were killed or went missing in the conflict. According to figures published in the Soviet Union, around 1.13 million people, were killed in North Korea (with the total casualties of some 2.5 million). More than 80 percent of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure, three-quarters of all government buildings, and half of all housing was destroyed. Korean War was a major struggle that imprinted its influence on the peninsula for the generations to come.\n\nHistorically, after the armistice both Korean states remained on the verge of military conflict, constantly ready for possible reemergence of the war. Yet, some divisions were put to reserve and both parties concentrated on their efforts to create huge defenses along the demarcation line.;;;X
EVT_8500826_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500830_NAME;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;;;X
EVT_8500830_DESC;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks who captured scheduled objectives and territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft. In addition to the invasion force, the North Korean KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in reserve in North Korea.\n\nTheir initial attacking force put North Koreans at great advantage against ill-prepared Koreans from the southern part of the peninsula.;;;X
EVT_8500830_A;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;Forward!!;;;X
EVT_8500831_NAME;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;Initial North Korean offensive;;;X
EVT_8500831_DESC;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;In contrast to the assaulting North Korean army, the ROK Army defenders were vastly unprepared, and the political establishment in the south, while well aware of the threat to the north, were unable to convince American administrators of the reality of the threat. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks (they had been requested from the US military, but requests were denied), and a 22–piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes.\n\nWithin days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee regime—were either retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the northern side, the KPA.;;;X
EVT_8500831_A;Run south!;Run south!;Run south!;Run south!;Run south!;Run south!;Run south!;Run south!;;;X
EVT_8500832_NAME;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;North Korean offensive halts;;;X
EVT_8500832_DESC;"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";;;X
EVT_8500832_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500833_NAME;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;Recovery of the army;;;X
EVT_8500833_DESC;"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";"Although Kim's early successes had led him to predict that he would end the war by the end of August, other leaders were more pessimistic. Against the rested and re-armed defenders of the Pusan Perimeter, the North Koreans were undermanned and poorly supplied; they also lacked naval and air support.";;;X
EVT_8500833_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500834_NAME;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;Counterattack from the South;;;X
EVT_8500834_DESC;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;;;X
EVT_8500834_A;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;We are falling back!;;;X
EVT_8500835_NAME;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;United Nations Counteroffensive;;;X
EVT_8500835_DESC;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;Assistance of American troops to South Korea deeply changed the balance of power and allowed for the tides of war to turn. To relieve the Pusan Perimeter, General MacArthur recommended an amphibious landing at Inchon, well over 160 km behind the KPA lines.  After the successful Incheon landing the 1st Cavalry Division began its northward advance from the Pusan Perimeter. The X Corps rapidly defeated the KPA defenders around Seoul, thus threatening to trap the main KPA force in Southern Korea.\n\nOn 18 September Stalin advised Kim Il-sung to halt his offensive around the Pusan perimeter and to redeploy his forces to defend Seoul. On 25 September Seoul was recaptured by South Korean forces. American air raids caused heavy damage to the KPA, destroying most of its tanks and much of its artillery. North Korean troops in the south, instead of effectively withdrawing north, rapidly disintegrated, leaving Pyongyang vulnerable. During the general retreat only 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers managed to rejoin the Northern KPA lines.\n\nOn 27 September Stalin convened an emergency session of the Politburo, in which he condemned the incompetence of the KPA command and held Soviet military advisers responsible for the defeat.;;;X
EVT_8500835_A;Press north!;Press north!;Press north!;Press north!;Press north!;Press north!;Press north!;Press north!;;;X
EVT_8500836_NAME;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;;;X
EVT_8500836_DESC;"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";;;X
EVT_8500836_A;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;;;X
EVT_8500837_NAME;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;War comes to stalemate;;;X
EVT_8500837_DESC;"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";"For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.";;;X
EVT_8500837_A;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;Exhausting war is ahead;;;X
EVT_8500840_NAME;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;First wave of international support;;;X
EVT_8500840_DESC;"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";;;X
EVT_8500840_A;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;;;X
EVT_8500841_NAME;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;Second wave of international support;;;X
EVT_8500841_DESC;"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";;;X
EVT_8500841_A;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;Help is on the way!;;;X
EVT_8500842_NAME;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;Third wave of international support;;;X
EVT_8500842_DESC;"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. After United Nations gave green light to the ensuing intervention, US garrisons in Japan continually dispatched soldiers and materiel to reinforce defenders in the Pusan Perimeter. Tank battalions deployed to Korea directly from the United States mainland from the port of San Francisco to the port of Pusan, the largest Korean port. By late August, the Pusan Perimeter had some 500 medium tanks battle-ready. In early September 1950, ROK Army and UN Command forces outnumbered the KPA 180,000 to 100,000 soldiers. The UN forces, once prepared, counterattacked and broke out of the Pusan Perimeter.";;;X
EVT_8500842_A;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;The tide has turned!;;;X
EVT_8500901_NAME;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;;;X
EVT_8500901_DESC;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nLeading the nascent Kurdish republic and fully endorsed by the Soviets was Qazi Muhammad, the religious and titular leader of Mahabad. Mullah Mustafa Barzani came to play an important role in the newly-created military force of the Mahabad Republic - the Peshmerga. With Barzani's support secured, along with some 60 tribal Kurdish leaders, the KDP-I party platform had been established and Qazi Muhammad elected the first president on 22 January 1946. The Kurdish forces were advised and organized by Soviet military officer Captain Salahuddin Kazimov. The Soviets extended their influence by sending at least 60 Kurds to Soviet Azarbaijan for additional military training. In total, the Mahabad army consisted of 70 active duty officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 1,200 lower-enlisted privates.;;;X
EVT_8500901_A;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;Allow peshmerga some freedom;;;X
EVT_8500901_B;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;Contain Kurdish movements;;;X
EVT_8500902_NAME;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;Republic of Mahabad;;;X
EVT_8500902_DESC;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;The Republic of Mahabad, officially known as Republic of Kurdistan and established in Iranian Kurdistan, was a short-lived, Kurdish government that sought Kurdish autonomy within the limits of the Iranian state. The state itself encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the market towns of Piranshahr, Sardasht, Bukan, Naqada and Ushnaviya.\n\nThe Soviets were generally ambivalent towards the Kurdish administration. They did not maintain a garrison near Mahabad and also did not have any civil agent of sufficient standing to exercise any great influence. They encouraged Qazi's administration by practical benevolent operations such as providing motor transport, keeping out the Iranian army, and buying the whole of the tobacco crop. On the other hand, the Soviets initially did not like Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of (Persian) Azerbaijan, and discouraged the formation of an independent Kurdish state. The Soviets allowed for safe passage of Mustafa Barzani and his followers into the Soviet Union following the fall of Mahabad.;;;X
EVT_8500902_A;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;It's our chance for freedom!;;;X
EVT_8500903_NAME;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;Our presence in Northern Iran;;;X
EVT_8500903_DESC;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. However, this close relationship to the USSR alienated the republic from most Western powers, causing them to side with Iran. Qazi Muhammad did not deny that his republic was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but did deny that the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) was a communist party. He claimed that this was a lie fabricated by the Iranian military authorities, and added that his ideals were very different from the Soviets'.\n\nMeanwhile, the pressure from Western Allies on us to pull out of northern Iran, amassed. With our dwindling support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;;;X
EVT_8500903_A;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;Leave Iran for good;;;X
EVT_8500903_B;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;Stay there and arm the Kurds;;;X
EVT_8500904_NAME;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;Soviets stay in Iran;;;X
EVT_8500904_DESC;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;Although the occupation of Iran was scheduled to end after the war at the Potsdam Conference following Germany’s surrender, Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the agreed upon schedule set at the Teheran Conference. In September 1945, first the US and then the UK withdrew their forces within the treaty-stipulated period. The Soviets not only violated the March 2 withdrawal deadline, in that time they had expanded their military presence southward. By mid-December 1945, with the use of troops and secret police, they had set up two pro-Soviet 'People's Democratic Republics' within Iranian territory, the Azerbaijan People's Republic headed by Sayyid Jafar Pishevari and the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.\n\nNow the Soviets are reneging on out initial agreements and want to hold onto these lands indefinitely.;;;X
EVT_8500904_A;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500904_B;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;Let Soviets have it;;;X
EVT_8500905_NAME;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;American ultimatum in Iran Crisis;;;X
EVT_8500905_DESC;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;Americans responded to our presence in Iran, discontent seeing how free people of Kurdistan celebrate their independence in friendship with USSR. They would like to see these lands reintegrated with reactionist Iran, led by nationalist and traditionalist Shah.\n\nWe should probably stick to our original agreements and withdraw our troops but if we are really keen on keeping our influence there, we can risk global war as well.;;;X
EVT_8500905_A;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;Withdraw from Iran;;;X
EVT_8500905_B;Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);Risk war (considerable risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8500906_NAME;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8500906_DESC;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;We responded to Soviet presence in Iran, discontent seeing how USSR uses Kurdish people to broaden their influence in this key region, at the cost of the rightful owners, represented by our friend, Shah of Iran. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;;;X
EVT_8500906_A;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;;;X
EVT_8500906_B;Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8500908_NAME;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;Reassertion of control over Northern Iran;;;X
EVT_8500908_DESC;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;Qazi Muhammad's internal support eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Economic aid and military assistance from the Soviet Union was now gone, and the tribes saw no reason to support Qazi Muhammad. Many tribes began to leave. Other tribes resented the Barzanis, since they did not like sharing their already dwindling resources with them. Some Kurds deserted Mahabad, including one of Mahabad's own marshals, Amir Khan. Mahabad was economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without harmony with Iran\n\nOn December 5, 1946, the war council told Qazi Muhammad that they would fight and resist the Iranian army if they tried to enter the region. The lack of Kurdish tribal support however made Qazi Muhammad only see a massacre upon the Kurdish civilians performed by the Iranian army rather than Kurdish rebellion. This forced him to avoid war at all cost, even if it meant sacrificing himself for his people, which eventually happened and lead to his execution.;;;X
EVT_8500908_A;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;Take these lands by force;;;X
EVT_8500908_B;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;Let Kurds have their state;;;X
EVT_8500909_NAME;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;American betrayal;;;X
EVT_8500909_DESC;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;Contrary to decades-long assertions of ongoing military and economic support, Americans faltered under Soviet pressure and decided to ignore Soviet movements in the northern part of our country. In the struggle with Kurdish and Soviet elements, we are on our own.;;;X
EVT_8500909_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500910_NAME;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;Kurds get full Soviet backing;;;X
EVT_8500910_DESC;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;Our recent diplomatic and economic support that we gave to our puppet state of Kurdistan met timid reactions of Americans. Kurdistan is now our true ally in the region, thankful for independence from the Iranian yoke.;;;X
EVT_8500910_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8500911_NAME;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;Withdrawal of Soviet support;;;X
EVT_8500911_DESC;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;The Republic of Mahabad depended on Soviet support and the Kurds only with the Red Army had a chance for survival of their statehood. With dwindling Soviet support for the Kurds, Qazi Muhammad's internal acclaim eventually declined, especially among the Kurdish tribes who had supported him initially. Their crops and supplies were dwindling, and their way of life was becoming hard as a result of the isolation. Mahabad was to become economically bankrupt, and it would have been nearly impossible for Mahabad to have been economically sound without either harmony with Iran or full economic and military support of USSR.;;;X
EVT_8500911_A;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;It's beginning of an end;;;X
EVT_8500920_NAME;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;;;X
EVT_8500920_DESC;"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";"The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Following an official US protest, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2, on January 30, 1946; the Soviets replied on March 24, 1946 and pledged immediate withdrawal, but in fact remained for a few more weeks. In a second stage through the spring, the US supported the Iranian complaint against Soviet actions lodged with the Security Council in Resolution 3 and Resolution 5.\n\nIn a third stage in mid December 1946, the US supported the shah’s government to send the Iranian army to re-occupied Mahabad and Azerbaijan. The leaders of the Azerbaijan enclave in Iran fled to the Azerbaijan SSR, and the leaders of the Kurdish Republic were tried and sentenced to death.\n\nA fourth stage was initiated in 1947 and centered on the issue of Soviet designs on Iran's northern oil resources. Following the election that year of a new Majlis, the newly elected deputies were reluctant to ratify the Soviet-Iranian oil agreement, which had been concluded under duress in March 1946 and had granted the Soviets 51 percent ownership and de facto control. On September 11, 1947, US ambassador George V. Allen publicly decried intimidation and coercion used by foreign governments to secure commercial concessions in Iran, and promised full US support for Iran to freely decide about its own natural resources. With this unequivocal encouragement, the Majlis refused to ratify the Soviet oil agreement on October 22, 1947; the vote was 102 to 2.";;;X
EVT_8500920_A;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8500921_NAME;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;Withdrawal from Persian Corridor;;;X
EVT_8500921_DESC;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;The United States exerted intense pressure on the Soviet Union in stages to force the withdrawal of the Red Army from Iran and reduce Soviet influence. Yet, we managed to successfully create and support our puppet states in Northern Iran and Americans could do little to prevent it. Now we may boost economic situation of Republic of Kurdistan by giving them some lands further east.;;;X
EVT_8500921_A;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;Withdraw;;;X
EVT_8500922_NAME;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;Allied withdrawal from Iran;;;X
EVT_8500922_DESC;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran - from technicians to spies - was no more than a thousand. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called 'The Bridge of Victory' by Winston Churchill.\n\nYet, after the war, importance of Iran, while still high because of its large deposits of oil, diminished for the Allies, and the Shah was allowed to rule his own country as long as he didn't interfere with foreign stakes in oil industry.;;;X
EVT_8500922_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8501001_NAME;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;Nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company;;;X
EVT_8501001_DESC;The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';;;X
EVT_8501001_A;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;Nationalize the oil fields!;;;X
EVT_8501001_B;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;Remain on good terms with the British;;;X
EVT_8501002_NAME;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;Abadan Crisis;;;X
EVT_8501002_DESC;The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';The AIOC was the United Kingdom's 'single largest overseas asset' and a 'source of national pride' in the British post-war era of Clement Attlee, and Ernest Bevin. Even as late as the 1940s and early 1950s some high British officials still believed that Persian petroleum was actually and rightly British petroleum because it had been discovered by the British, developed by British capital, and exploited through British skill and British ingenuity. In stark contrast, Premier Mosaddeq believed the 1933 concession granted to the AIOC by Iran was 'immoral as well as illegal'. Mosaddeq 'challenged every aspect of the British commercial presence in Iran'. The British feared that if Mosaddeq's policies prevailed, 'nationalists throughout the world could abrogate British concessions with impunity.'\n\nThe AIOC was nationalized by the Iranian Parliament in March 1951. In Iran this was enormously popular and seen as a long overdue staunching of its national wealth which could now be harnessed to fighting poverty in Iran. In Britain the nationalisation was widely seen as an intolerable breach of contract or theft. British emissaries in the United States after the nationalisation, argued that allowing Iran to nationalise the oil company 'would be widely regarded as a victory for the Russians' and would also 'cause a loss of one hundred million pounds per annum in the United Kingdom's balance of payments, thus seriously affecting our rearmament program and our cost of living.';;;X
EVT_8501002_A;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;Impose sanctions and intercept their shipments!;;;X
EVT_8501002_B;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;Turn blind eye;;;X
EVT_8501003_NAME;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;British reaction to Abadan Crisis;;;X
EVT_8501003_DESC;"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";"British warships blockaded Abadan. On 22 August, the British cabinet imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran. It prohibited exports of key British commodities, including sugar and steel, directed the withdrawal of all British personnel from Iranian oil fields and all but a hard core of about 300 administrators from Abadan and blocked Iran's access to its hard currency accounts in British banks.\n\nAfter the withdrawal of the British workers in the fall of 1951, the Iranians felt confident that they could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and then quickly train their own nationals to replace them. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case; the United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Germany all refused to make their technicians available to the nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy complied, demonstrating that most industrialized countries supported Britain over Iran in the nationalization dispute.\n\nIn July 1952, the Royal Navy intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and forced it into the British protectorate of Aden on the grounds that the ship's petroleum was stolen property. News that the Royal Navy was intercepting tankers carrying Iranian oil scared off other tankers and effectively shut down oil exports from Iran.";;;X
EVT_8501003_A;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;Sanctions hurt us tremendously;;;X
EVT_8501003_B;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;We manage to make the ends meet;;;X
EVT_8501004_NAME;Search for international support;Search for international support;Search for international support;Search for international support;Search for international support;Search for international support;Search for international support;Search for international support;;;X
EVT_8501004_DESC;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Yet, there's still one more country to turn to, with plea for support, even if it means that Americans and the British are going to be enraged.;;;X
EVT_8501004_A;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;Beg Soviets for assistance;;;X
EVT_8501004_B;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;We'll try to fend for ourselves;;;X
EVT_8501005_NAME;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;Soviet support in Abadan Crisis;;;X
EVT_8501005_DESC;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked us for help, promising us greater influence and profits from oil trade. The offer is interesting as long as Americans don't want to step in.;;;X
EVT_8501005_A;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;We are ready to support them;;;X
EVT_8501005_B;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;Refrain;;;X
EVT_8501006_NAME;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;Soviets meddle in Abadan Crisis;;;X
EVT_8501006_DESC;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;British sanctions and blockade as well as Western hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC brought Iran on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and we should react to prevent these steps.;;;X
EVT_8501006_A;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;Send ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8501006_B;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;Don't intervene;;;X
EVT_8501007_NAME;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;American ultimatum in Abadan Crisis;;;X
EVT_8501007_DESC;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;Our friendly offer to Mossadegh's government in Iran met staunch American opposition. USA clearly wants to bring Iran on the brink of economic breakdown to topple their rightful government.\n\nWe can withdraw our support which will almost surely mean that Mossadegh will fall or ignore the ultimatum at the risk of war with United States.;;;X
EVT_8501007_A;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;Withdraw our support for Iran;;;X
EVT_8501007_B;Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);Risk war (high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8501008_NAME;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;USSR ignores the ultimatum;;;X
EVT_8501008_DESC;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;Desperate about the country's future, Premier Mossadegh asked USSR for help, promising them greater influence and profits from oil trade. These diplomatic overtures place our interests in this region in grave danger and made us send an ultimatum to USSR to stop supporting Iranian regime. Soviet Union bluntly ignored our ultimatum and it is our move now to declare the war.;;;X
EVT_8501008_A;Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);Then it is war (WW3);;;X
EVT_8501008_B;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;;;X
EVT_8501010_NAME;Soviet support;Soviet support;Soviet support;Soviet support;Soviet support;Soviet support;Soviet support;Soviet support;;;X
EVT_8501010_DESC;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;British sanctions and blockade as well as general hostility towards the nationalization of AIOC left us in the cold, on the verge of going bankrupt due to oil exports having stopped. However, while Western countries were united in their plans to bring us to our knees we could count on friendly support from Soviet Union. Willing to capitalize on oil trade, Soviets decided give us a helping hand.;;;X
EVT_8501010_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8501020_NAME;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;Operation Ajax;;;X
EVT_8501020_DESC;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government that was keen on maintaining its decision of nationalizing oil industry.Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.;;;X
EVT_8501020_A;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;Operation Ajax succeeds;;;X
EVT_8501020_B;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;Operation Ajax fails;;;X
EVT_8501021_NAME;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company returned;;;X
EVT_8501021_DESC;"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";"As a result of the crisis, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was ousted from power. During the coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, the CIA and the MI6 restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power. In August 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40 percent to be divided equally (8 percent each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40 percent share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14 percent; and CFP, a French Company, to receive 6 percent. Iran got now 25 percent of the profits compared to 20 percent of the original treaty with the AIOC. Saudi-Arabia and other oil-exploiting countries of the region received up to 50 percent of the profits in cooperation with American oil companies at the same time.";;;X
EVT_8501021_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8501022_NAME;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;Control over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company lost for good;;;X
EVT_8501022_DESC;"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";"Mossadeq broke off negotiations with AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and warned tanker owners that 'the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market.' As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. Popular support allowed him to prevail and when social and political turmoil dissipated, Iran could slowly reintroduce its oil on the world market, now taking full profit from its sales.";;;X
EVT_8501022_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8501101_NAME;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;Hungarian Revolution;;;X
EVT_8501101_DESC;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;The Hungarian Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the People's Republic of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956.\n\nIn Hungary in 1953, the reformist Imre Nagy replaced Mátyás Rákosi, 'Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple', as Prime Minister. After Khrushchev's 'secret speech' of February 1956, which denounced Stalin and his protégés, Rakosi was deposed as General Secretary of the Party and replaced by Erno Gero on 18 July 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building called out on the streets via 'Radio Free Europe' and a van with loudspeakers on the roof. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and security police members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People's Party and demanded political changes.;;;X
EVT_8501101_A;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;Topple the statue of Stalin;;;X
EVT_8501101_B;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;Maintain order at all costs;;;X
EVT_8501102_NAME;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;Hungarian Neutrality;;;X
EVT_8501102_DESC;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;The rapid spread of the uprising in the streets of Budapest and the abrupt fall of the Gero-Hegedus government left the new national leadership surprised, and at first disorganized. Nagy, a loyal Party reformer described as possessing 'only modest political skills', initially appealed to the public for calm and a return to the old order. Yet Nagy, the only remaining Hungarian leader with credibility in both the eyes of the public and the Soviets, 'at long last concluded that a popular uprising rather than a counter-revolution was taking place'. On October 28, Nagy announced an immediate and general cease-fire over the radio.\n\nOn November 1, in a radio address to the Hungarian people, Nagy formally declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact as well as Hungary’s stance of neutrality. Because it held office only ten days, the National Government had little chance to clarify its policies in detail. However, newspaper editorials at the time stressed that Hungary should be a neutral, multiparty social democracy. Political parties which were previously banned, such as the Independent Smallholders and the National Peasants' Party, reappeared to join the coalition. Local revolutionary councils formed throughout Hungary, generally without involvement from the preoccupied National Government in Budapest, and assumed various responsibilities of local government from the defunct communist party.;;;X
EVT_8501102_A;Freedom!;Freedom!;Freedom!;Freedom!;Freedom!;Freedom!;Freedom!;Freedom!;;;X
EVT_8501102_B;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;Back down;;;X
EVT_8501103_NAME;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;Soviet reaction to Hungarian Revolution;;;X
EVT_8501103_DESC;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;On 24 October, the Soviet Politburo discussed the political upheavals in Poland and Hungary. A hard-line faction led by Molotov was pushing for intervention, but Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov were initially opposed. A delegation in Budapest reported that the situation was not as dire as had been portrayed. Even Marshal Georgy Zhukov said: 'We should withdraw troops from Budapest, and if necessary withdraw from Hungary as a whole. This is a lesson for us in the military-political sphere.' On 30 October, armed protestors attacked the security police detachment at Republic Square. Over 20 officers were killed, some of them lynched by the mob. The head of the Budapest party committee was wounded and later died. Scenes from Republic Square were shown on Soviet newsreels a few hours later and the Soviet leaders decided to reverse their decision.\n\nThe decision to intervene militarily was most probably taken one day before Hungary declared its neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact although this event surely cemented Soviet position. For the majority of the Soviet Presidium, the workers' direct control over their councils without Communist Party leadership was incompatible with their idea of socialism.\n\nThe plan was to declare a 'Provisional Revolutionary Government' under Janos Kadar, who would appeal for Soviet assistance to restore order. To disguise these intentions, Soviet diplomats were to engage the Nagy government in talks discussing the withdrawal of Soviet forces.;;;X
EVT_8501103_A;We must intervene;We must intervene;We must intervene;We must intervene;We must intervene;We must intervene;We must intervene;We must intervene;;;X
EVT_8501103_B;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;Let them discover their path to communism;;;X
EVT_8501104_NAME;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;;;X
EVT_8501104_DESC;"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";"Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of the Red Army was not enough to beat brave Hungarians. Our move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will lead Hungary towards freedom and social democracy. We successfully challenged the pre-eminence of the Soviet Communist Party in Eastern Europe and the Soviet hegemony itself. Workers' councils that overtook control over Hungary are, in the words of Hannah Arendt, ""the only free and acting soviets in existence anywhere in the world"".";;;X
EVT_8501104_A;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;;;X
EVT_8501105_NAME;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;Hungarian Revolution fails;;;X
EVT_8501105_DESC;"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";;;X
EVT_8501105_A;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;Victory!;;;X
EVT_8501106_NAME;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;Failure of Hungarian Revolution;;;X
EVT_8501106_DESC;"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";"On 1 November, Imre Nagy received reports that Soviet forces had entered Hungary from the east and were moving towards Budapest. Nagy sought and received assurances from Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov that the Soviet Union would not invade, although Andropov knew otherwise. The intervention, codenamed ""Operation Whirlwind"", was launched by Marshal Ivan Konev. The five Soviet divisions stationed in Hungary before 23 October were augmented to a total strength of 17 divisions. By 9:30 p.m. on 3 November, the Soviet Army had completely encircled Budapest.\n\nFighting in Budapest consisted of between ten and fifteen thousand resistance fighters, with the heaviest fighting occurring in the working-class stronghold of Csepel on the Danube River. Although some very senior officers were openly pro-Soviet, the rank and file soldiers were overwhelmingly loyal to the revolution and either fought against the invasion or deserted. The United Nations reported that there were no recorded incidents of Hungarian Army units fighting on the side of the Soviets.\n\nAt 5:20 a.m. on 4 November, Imre Nagy broadcast his final plea to the nation and the world, announcing that Soviet Forces were attacking Budapest and that the Government remained at its post. On 4 November, in the town of Szolnok, Janos Kadar declared 'We must put an end to the excesses of the counter-revolutionary elements. The hour for action has sounded. We are going to defend the interest of the workers and peasants and the achievements of the people's democracy.'\n\nSoon organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, as Soviet troops spared little effort to differentiate military from civilian targets.";;;X
EVT_8501106_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8501110_NAME;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides to intervene in Hungary;;;X
EVT_8501110_DESC;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;United States brought the matter of our intervention in United Nations General Assembly and are now mounting allied force as a peacekeeping army in Hungary. They somehow managed to convince several major powers in the Western world to stand besides Hungarian counterrevolutionaries and bourgeois troublemakers. Shall we crush alliance of the capitalists along with Hungarian rebels or can we find some diplomatic excuse to end our invasion before it really started.;;;X
EVT_8501110_A;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;Withdraw invading forces;;;X
EVT_8501110_B;Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);Ignore it (high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8501111_NAME;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;USSR ignores United Nations admonition;;;X
EVT_8501111_DESC;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;Even though we managed to get United Nations support to stop Soviet Union in their advance into freedom-loving Hungary, the Reds are making none of it, with their tanks closing in on Budapest. Is it time to stand as the representative of the Free World and united under the UN banner reply with full force to the Soviet agression in a foreign country?;;;X
EVT_8501111_A;Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);Declare war! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8501111_B;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;Let them proceed;;;X
EVT_8501112_NAME;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;United Nations decides not to intervene in Hungary;;;X
EVT_8501112_DESC;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;We brought the matter of the Soviet intervention in United Nations General Assembly but our diplomatic standing was still not overbearing enough to convince the Free World to stand united and drive the Reds outside of Hungary. Shall we authorize military action there at all cost, ignoring lack of UN mandate and upcoming World War 3?;;;X
EVT_8501112_A;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;Let the matter drop;;;X
EVT_8501112_B;Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);Intervene! (very high risk of WW3);;;X
EVT_8501113_NAME;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;USA decides to intervene in Hungary on their own;;;X
EVT_8501113_DESC;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;The matter of the our intervention was discussed in United Nations General Assembly but failed due to our fervent opposition. Still, Americans feel that they have undisputable mandate to lead military intervention in this area to curb our plans to reinstate socialism in Hungary. Shall we teach them a lesson that such unprovoked aggression leads to nothing good?;;;X
EVT_8501113_A;Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);Our tanks are rolling! (WW3);;;X
EVT_8501113_B;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;Rethink this;;;X
EVT_8501115_NAME;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;Hungarian Revolution succeeds;;;X
EVT_8501115_DESC;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;Hungarian Revolution brought ferment into the communist world but united forces of workers and assistance of our brave Red Army was not enough to beat turncoat Hungarians. Their move towards multiparty parliamentary democracy, by forming a democratic national council of workers, will surely lead them into grasps of fascism and capitalism. For us it is a bitter defeat and stain on honor of our military and political might which will surely have repercussions on the shape of socialist world in the future.;;;X
EVT_8501115_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85101XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;United Nations resolution for Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_85101XX_DESC;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;After tension between Communists and Nationalists in civil struggle in China went hot, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies label Communists as a chief destabilizing force and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to help Chiang Kai-shek unite his country after the war. Soviet Union, in spite of possible ideological difference between Chinese and Soviet views on communism, will most probably vehemently oppose this move.;;;X
EVT_85101XX_A;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;;;X
EVT_85101XX_B;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;;;X
EVT_85101XX_C;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510106_NAME;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_8510106_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510106_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8510107_NAME;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Chinese Civil War;;;X
EVT_8510107_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510107_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85102XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;United Nations resolution for Suez War;;;X
EVT_85102XX_DESC;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;After Israel made a surprise attack on Egypt, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Soviet Union and its allies label Israel outright as aggressors and would like UN to take active stance to support the defenders. United States do not endorse this attack, yet it is debatable whether they would like to offer support to their enemies in Middle East, whatever stain their image may take. France and United Kingdom will certainly keep their eyes open on possibility of forcible resolution of Egyptian case and most certainly will turn down the Soviet proposal.;;;X
EVT_85102XX_A;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;;;X
EVT_85102XX_B;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;;;X
EVT_85102XX_C;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510206_NAME;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;United Nations decide to intervene in Suez War;;;X
EVT_8510206_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510206_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8510207_NAME;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;United Nations decide to support us in Suez War;;;X
EVT_8510207_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510207_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85103XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;United Nations resolution for Taiwan Strait War;;;X
EVT_85103XX_DESC;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;After troops of People's Republic of China started preparation to cross Taiwan Strait, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies treat this aggression as a disgusting show of force against weakened Chiang Kai-shek and propose sending United Nations peacekeeping mission, or at least supplies to support defence of Taiwan. Soviet Union doesn't consider Mao's gamble prudent and there are a lot of ideological differences between Chinese and Soviet views on communism. Nevertheless, Soviets will think twice before supporting enemies of communism.;;;X
EVT_85103XX_A;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;;;X
EVT_85103XX_B;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;;;X
EVT_85103XX_C;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510306_NAME;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to intervene in Taiwan Strait War;;;X
EVT_8510306_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510306_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8510307_NAME;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;United Nations decide to support us in Taiwan Strait War;;;X
EVT_8510307_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510307_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85104XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;United Nations resolution for Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_85104XX_DESC;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;The conflict between government troops and communist partisans is raging for many months in Greece. At last, United Nations decided to put this conflict on the Security Council's agenda. Western Allies consider the government in Athens as a rightful representative of the country and communist incursions as an attempt to topple the balance of power in this part of Europe. Soviet Union is not too keen on broadening their influence in Greece but it's hard to believe they will let peacekeeping forces to turn arms against communist guerilla.;;;X
EVT_85104XX_A;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;;;X
EVT_85104XX_B;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;;;X
EVT_85104XX_C;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510406_NAME;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to intervene in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8510406_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on considerable support for our cause. We will receive peacekeeping troops and large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510406_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8510407_NAME;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;United Nations decide to support us in Greek Civil War;;;X
EVT_8510407_DESC;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;According to the latest United Nations resolution we can count on some support for our cause. We will receive large amounts of war materiel that should help us wage the ongoing war.;;;X
EVT_8510407_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85105XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;United Nations resolution for Eritrea;;;X
EVT_85105XX_DESC;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to the former colony in February 1950 in the absence of Allied agreement and in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. It was also at this juncture that the US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, said, 'From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and the considerations of security and world peace make it necessary that the country has to be linked with our ally Ethiopia.' The Ambassador's word choice makes quite clear the fact that the Eritrea aspiration was for Independence.\n\nYet the commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia, and the UN General Assembly adopted that proposal along with a provision terminating British administration of Eritrea no later than September 15, 1952.;;;X
EVT_85105XX_A;Support it;Support it;Support it;Support it;Support it;Support it;Support it;Support it;;;X
EVT_85105XX_B;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510506_NAME;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;Fate of Eritrea;;;X
EVT_8510506_DESC;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;A United Nations commission was dispatched to Eritrea in the face of Eritrean demands for self-determination. The commission proposed the establishment of some form of association with Ethiopia and in 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Soon it became clear though that Ethiopia is going to exert full control in the newly gained area of Eritrea.;;;X
EVT_8510506_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85106XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations resolution for Indonesian National Revolution;;;X
EVT_85106XX_DESC;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. United States aid specifically earmarked for the Netherlands' Indonesia efforts was immediately cancelled and pressure mounted within the U.S. Congress for all United States aid to be cut off. This included Marshall Plan funds vital for Dutch post-World War II rebuilding that had so far totalled $US 1 billion. The Netherlands Government had spent an amount equivalent to almost half of this funding their campaigns in Indonesia. The notion that international aid could be used to fund 'a senile and ineffectual imperialism' encouraged many key voices in the United States and other countries of the world.;;;X
EVT_85106XX_A;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;Vote for military support for Indonesia;;;X
EVT_85106XX_B;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;Vote for peaceful resolution of the conflict;;;X
EVT_85106XX_C;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;Veto any initiatives;;;X
EVT_8510606_NAME;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;United Nations decide to intervene in Indonesian National Revolution;;;X
EVT_8510606_DESC;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. Thanks to clear stance of the great powers against colonialism, we are able to gain considerable military support, in war materiel and resources, which will enable us to muster a couple of well-equipped divisions. That will surely help us fend off Dutch assaults and achieve victory in our struggle for independence.;;;X
EVT_8510606_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8510607_NAME;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;United Nations decide to condemn the Netherlands;;;X
EVT_8510607_DESC;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;International opinion of the Dutch military campaigns in Indonesia was one of outrage, significantly in both the United Nations and the United States. In January 1949, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the reinstatement of the Republican government. The great powers could not agree to support us directly by sending us troops but they did condemn continuous Dutch presence in the archipelago. It means that the pressure on the Netherlands to allow us full independence will mount which should make them ready to accept our terms, sooner or later.;;;X
EVT_8510607_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85107XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;United Nations resolution for Korean War;;;X
EVT_85107XX_DESC;"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";"The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government while the South established a Capitalist one. This situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.\n\nHistorically, on the same day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea, with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82. The USSR, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime.\n\nThe USSR challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.";;;X
EVT_85107XX_A;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;;;X
EVT_85107XX_B;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;;;X
EVT_85107XX_C;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510706_NAME;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;United Nations decide to intervene in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8510706_DESC;"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";"Despite the rapid post–Second World War Allied demobilizations, there were substantial US forces occupying Japan; under General Douglas MacArthur's command, they could be made ready to fight the North Koreans. Only the British Commonwealth had comparable forces in the area.\n\nAfter favourable outcome of United Nations Security Council resolution and per State Secretary Acheson's recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer materiel to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of US nationals. The President disagreed with advisors who recommended unilateral US bombing of the North Korean forces, and ordered the US Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose Nationalist Government asked to fight in Korea. The US denied the Nationalist Chinese request for combat, lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the US had sent the Seventh Fleet to 'neutralize' the Taiwan Strait, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and US initiatives as 'armed aggression on Chinese territory.'";;;X
EVT_8510706_A;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;Great!;;;X
EVT_8510707_NAME;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;United Nations decide to support us in Korean War;;;X
EVT_8510707_DESC;"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";"The matter of invasion of communist forces under Kim Il Sung was put under United Nations Security Council agenda but there have been some concerns over legality of the council's decision to support us with peacekeeping forces. Especially the USSR challenged the legitimacy of the intervention for several reasons. The ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and the Korean conflict was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial north–south border fighting was classed as a civil war.\n\nThose doubts resulted in division among the world powers and the decision not to support us with troops. Still, we will receive supplies to help us fend off unlawful invasion.";;;X
EVT_8510707_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_85108XX_NAME;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;United Nations resolution for Hungarian Revolution;;;X
EVT_85108XX_DESC;"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";"Although the United States Secretary of State recommended on 24 October that the United Nations Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Hungary, little immediate action was taken to introduce a resolution, in part because other world events unfolded the day after the peaceful 'interlude' started, when allied collusion started the Suez Crisis. The problem was not that Suez distracted U.S. attention from Hungary, but that it made the condemnation of Soviet actions very difficult. Responding to the plea by Nagy at the time of the second massive Soviet intervention on 4 November, the Security Council resolution critical of Soviet actions was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead resolution 120 was adopted to pass the matter onto the General Assembly. The General Assembly, by a vote of 50 in favor, 8 against and 15 abstentions, called on the Soviet Union to end its Hungarian intervention, but the newly constituted Kádár government rejected UN observers.\n\nDuring the uprising, the Radio Free Europe (RFE) Hungarian-language programs broadcast news of the political and military situation, as well as appealing to Hungarians to fight the Soviet forces, including tactical advice on resistance methods. After the Soviet suppression of the revolution, RFE was criticized for having misled the Hungarian people that NATO or United Nations would intervene if the citizens continued to resist.";;;X
EVT_85108XX_A;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;Support intervention and material support;;;X
EVT_85108XX_B;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;Vote for material support only;;;X
EVT_85108XX_C;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;Veto it!;;;X
EVT_8510807_NAME;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;United Nations decide to support us in Hungarian Revolution;;;X
EVT_8510807_DESC;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;There was no unanimity needed to push military intervention of United Nations through but the Security Council agreed to support us with some supplies. Ostensibly meant to ease toll among civilians, this help will surely assist Hungarians in their struggle against mighty USSR. But will it be enough? Nobody seems to believe it.;;;X
EVT_8510807_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
EVT_8940011_NAME;Allied again;Allied again;Allied again;Allied again;Allied again;Allied again;Allied again;Allied again;;;X
EVT_8940011_DESC;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;Time of the civil war was an exception to the undisputable support and protection of Western Allies that the continue to give us. The Allies chose not to directly meddle with our internal affairs and let us hedge our bets alone. Now, with communist insurgency beaten, we may once again be the part of the Allies and be protected against all enemies.;;;X
EVT_8940011_A;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;OK;;;X
NPERSONALITY_MESSIANIC_ZEALOT;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;Messianic Zealot;;;X
DPERSONALITY_MESSIANIC_ZEALOT;"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";"The messianic zealot is determined to spread his preferred system of government across the entirety of the planet. In his eyes, the future of mankind belongs to those on his side, and all who oppose this vision must be swept away. He could be a socialist calling for a ""holy war against imperialism,"" an ideologue who thinks that the world can only be safe once all tyrants have fallen, or a religious fanatic. Either way, his militant rhetoric strikes fear in the hearts of other world leaders, and his radicalism makes peaceful coexistence unlikely.";;;X
NPERSONALITY_TRAVELING_SALESMAN;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;Traveling Salesman;;;X
DPERSONALITY_TRAVELING_SALESMAN;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;The traveling salesman has made a name for himself while serving as the Minister of Trade. Now he is often used as a foreign emissary where his flexible attitudes, amiable nature, and haggling skills have served his country well. For him, foreign affairs and trade are practically synonymous, and he prefers fostering a stable and friendly business environment to any adventures that may upset the nation’s foreign customers and investors.;;;X
NPERSONALITY_CULTURE_WARRIOR;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;Culture Warrior;;;X
DPERSONALITY_CULTURE_WARRIOR;"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";"The Culture Warrior sees themself as an integral player in the struggle for their nation’s soul. From their point of view the country is in the midst of an epic struggle between two sets of conflicting cultural values. This is simply unacceptable to them, as they insist that the only cultural conflict that should be tolerated in their society is ""the conflict between good and best."" They reject notions that art can be apolitical because they have an uncanny knack for discovering insidious undertones everywhere. The culture warrior wants the country’s artists, writers, mass media, and intelligentsia to confirm to his or her values. They are fine if creativity has to be stifled so long as the country is protected from foreign, subversive, or degenerate ideas. .";;;X
NPERSONALITY_MAD_MAN;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;M.A.D. Man;;;X
DPERSONALITY_MAD_MAN;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;The M.A.D. Man claims that the deployment of nuclear weapons is essential to the maintenance of peace. He truly believes that the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation will keep his nation’s enemies in check. He always in favor of strengthening the nation’s nuclear capabilities, just in case his country has to fight the very war that he hopes to avoid.;;;X
NPERSONALITY_SPACE_ENTHUSIAST;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;Space Enthusiast;;;X
DPERSONALITY_SPACE_ENTHUSIAST;"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";"The Space Enthusiast has poured his heart and soul into researching space and trying to speed up his chances of getting there. He is convinced that the meek shall inherit the earth while the rest of humanity colonizes the stars. Unfortunately, the government is more interested in the military capabilities of his precious rockets than his plans for eventually landing men on Mars, but he thinks that he’s clever enough to make them see things his way or, barring that, present them with a Fait Accompli by designing a ""dual use"" rocket.";;;X
NPERSONALITY_CAPITALIST_ROADER;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;Capitalist Roader;;;X
DPERSONALITY_CAPITALIST_ROADER;"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";"The Capitalist Roader is seen by Party hardliners as a person whose policies threaten to pull the Revolution in a capitalist direction. However, the Capitalist Roader prefers to be thought of as a pragmatist willing to do everything in their power to improve the living standards of the people. From his point of view it shouldn't matter if a ""cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."" Whether his policies will restore the economic and political power of Bourgeoisie forces remains to be seen.";;;X
NPERSONALITY_REFORMIST_SPY;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;The Spy who came in from the Cold;;;X
DPERSONALITY_REFORMIST_SPY;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;The Spy who came in from the cold made his reputation during his tenure as head of his country’s intelligence agency. His professionalism, hard work, and toughness impressed his political superiors, and these ties paved his way to power. While in the intelligence field he worked to modernize foreign and domestic espionage, turning the state security apparatus into an efficient and sophisticated organization. His experience, and extensive knowledge of foreign countries, has helped him understand the problems inherent in his own society. He is confident enough to be frank and open about his country’s problems, which he sees as necessary to lay the base for significant changes in the structure and method of government. Despite reformist tendencies, he remains a spy at heart. He will deal openly and shrewdly with other countries, but he will not sacrifice his nation’s vital interests in order to improve relations with foreign countries.;;;X
NPERSONALITY_GOSPLAN_BOSS;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;The Gosplan Boss;;;X
DPERSONALITY_GOSPLAN_BOSS;"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";"Nikolai Alekseevich Voznesensky was the Soviet economist who oversaw the running of Gosplan, the economic planning comitte of the USSR, for the better part of a decade. During his tenure, he was in charge of the third, fourth, and fifth five year plans, the evacuation of Soviet industries to the east, and economic planning during the Second World War and the early stages of post war reconstruction. His skills ensured a meteoric rise in Soviet Politics. At the age of 38, Voznesensky was appointed First Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. After the war, he became a full member of the politburo. However, this was short lived. He lost influence after the death of his mentor and ally Andrei Zhdanov and was subsequently persecuted during the ""Leningrad Affair."" Voznesensky was given a secret trial in 1949 and was found guilty of treason, sentenced to death and executed the same day.";;;X
USA_1945_DESC;"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";"On May 8, 1945, the Allies accepted German surrender terms at the conclusion of the European conflict of World War II. The Potsdam Conference (July 17 to August 2, 1945) attempted to confront the delicate balance of power of the opposing governmental structures, democracy and communism. However despite the agreement on the partitioning of Germany and the call for an unconditional surrender of Japan, the conference did nothing to quell the increasing tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sealed the fate of Japan, and the surrender documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2nd, 1945. Soviet and Western (U.S., British, and French) troops were located along a line through the center of Germany. Aside from a few minor adjustments, this would be the 'Iron Curtain' of the Cold War. With the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized (except that Yugoslavia broke with the Soviets and gained American support). In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists started gaining the upper hand. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For United States, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary. Containment was supported by Democrats and internationalist Republicans (led by Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, and general Dwight D. Eisenhower), but was opposed by the isolationists led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.";;;X
USA_1950_DESC;"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";"In 1947, well before McCarthy became active, the Conservative Coalition in Congress passed the Taft Hartley Act, designed to balance the rights of management and unions, and delegitimizing Communist union leaders. The challenge of rooting out Communists from labor unions and the Democratic party was successfully undertaken by liberals. The House Un-American Activities Committee, with young Congressman Richard M. Nixon playing a central role, accused Alger Hiss, a top Roosevelt aide, which resulted in him being convicted and sent to prison, with the anti-Communists gaining a powerful political weapon.\n\nWith the onset of the Cold War in Europe in 1947, the East-West lines stabilized. In Asia, however, there was much more movement as the Communists took over China in 1949 and attempted to take over all of Korea and Vietnam. Communist hegemony covered one third of the world's land while the United States emerged as the world's more influential superpower, and formed a worldwide network of military alliances. For NATO, containment of the expansion of Soviet influence became foreign policy doctrine; the expectation was that eventually the inefficient Soviet system would collapse of internal weakness, and no 'hot' war (that is, one with large-scale combat) would be necessary.\n\nMeanwhile, in 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb.";;;X
USA_1953_DESC;"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";"After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. However, tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union were rising. 'McCarthyism' was expanded to include attacks on supposed Communist influence in Hollywood, which resulted in a black-list whereby artists who refused to testify about possible Communist connections could not get work. Some famous celebrities (such as Charlie Chaplin) left the U.S.; other worked under pseudonyms (such as Dalton Trumbo). McCarthyism included investigations into academics and teachers as well.\n\nIn 1949, the communist leader Mao Zedong won control of mainland China in a civil war, proclaimed the People's Republic of China, then traveled to Moscow where he negotiated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. China had thus moved from a close ally of the U.S. to a bitter enemy, and the two fought each other starting in late 1950 in Korea. The Truman administration responded with a secret 1950 plan, NSC-68, designed to confront the Communists with large-scale defense spending. The Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.";;;X
USA_1956_DESC;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;After World War 2, the United States were the only major industrial power in the world whose economy emerged intact—and even greatly strengthened—was the United States. Consumerism represented one of the consequences (as well as one of the key ingredients) of the postwar economic boom. With the prosperity of the era, the prevailing social attitude was one of belief in science, technology, progress, and futurism. There was comparatively little nostalgia for the prewar era and the overall emphasis was on having everything new and more advanced than before. Nonetheless, the social conformity and consumerism of the 1950s often came under attack from intellectuals and there was a good deal of unrest fermenting under the surface of American society that would erupt during the following decade.\n\nThe Russians had built an atomic bomb by 1950—much sooner than expected while Truman ordered the development of the Hydrogen bomb. Stalin approved a North Korean plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea in June 1950. President Truman immediately and unexpectedly implemented the containment policy by a full-scale commitment of American and UN forces to Korea. He did not consult or gain approval of Congress but did gain the approval of the United Nations (UN) to drive back the North Koreans and re-unite that country in terms of a rollback strategy. The communist threat managed to be contained but by 1953 when the hostilities ceased, Americans were not able to conquer the whole peninsula.;;;X
USA_1959_DESC;"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";"The immediate years unfolding after World War II were generally ones of stability and prosperity for Americans. The nation reconverted its war machine back into a consumer culture almost overnight and found jobs for 12 million returning veterans. Increasing numbers enjoyed high wages, larger houses, better schools, more cars and home comforts like vacuum cleaners, washing machines—which were all made for labor-saving and to make housework easier.\n\nOn international scene, a dramatic shock to Americans' self-confidence and its technological superiority came in 1957, when the Soviets beat the United States into outer space by launching Sputnik, the first earth satellite. The space race began, and by the early 1960s the United States had forged ahead, with President Kennedy promising to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Trouble close to home appeared when the Soviets formed an alliance with Cuba after Fidel Castro's successful revolution in 1959. The Communist world split in half, as China turned against the Soviet Union; Mao denounced Khrushchev for going soft on capitalism. In 1958, the U.S. sent troops into Lebanon for nine months to stabilize a country on the verge of civil war. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower dispatched large sums of economic and military aid and 695 military advisers to South Vietnam to stabilize the pro-western government under attack by insurgents. Eisenhower supported CIA efforts to undermine anti-American governments, which proved most successful in Iran and Guatemala.\n\nThe first major strain among the NATO alliance occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to retreat from their invasion of Egypt (with Israel) which was intended to get back their ownership of the Suez Canal. Instead of supporting the claims of its NATO partners, the Eisenhower administration feared that Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's standoff with the region's old colonial powers would bolster Soviet power in the region.";;;X
ENG_1945_DESC;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;;;X
ENG_1950_DESC;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;;;X
ENG_1953_DESC;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nThe end of the war saw a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and the Labour Party. They were elected on a manifesto of greater social justice with left wing policies such as the creation of a National Health Service, an expansion of the provision of council housing and nationalisation of the major industries. Britain faced severe financial crises, and responded by reducing her international responsibilities and by sharing the hardships of an 'age of austerity.' Large loans from the United States and Marshall Plan grants helped rebuild and modernize its infrastructure and business practices. Rationing and conscription dragged on into the post war years, and the country suffered one of the worst winters on record. Nevertheless, morale was boosted by events such as the marriage of Princess Elizabeth in 1947 and the Festival of Britain.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort.;;;X
ENG_1956_DESC;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;;;X
ENG_1959_DESC;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;Britain was a winner in the war, but it lost India in 1947 and nearly all the rest of the Empire by 1960. It debated its role in world affairs and joined the United Nations in 1945, NATO in 1949, where it became a close ally of the United States. Prosperity returned in the 1950s and London remained a world center of finance and culture, but the nation was no longer a major world power.\n\nAs the country headed into the 1950s, rebuilding continued and a number of immigrants from the remaining British Empire, mostly the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, were invited to help the rebuilding effort. As the 1950s wore on, Britain lost its place as a superpower and could no longer maintain its large Empire. This led to decolonisation, and a withdrawal from almost all of its colonies by 1970. Events such as the Suez Crisis showed that the UK's status had fallen in the world. The 1950s and 1960s were, however, relatively prosperous times after the Second World War, and saw the beginning of a modernisation of the UK, with the construction of its first motorways for example, and also during the 1960s a great cultural movement began which expanded across the world. Unemployment was relatively low during this period and the standard of living continued to rise with more new private and council housing developments taking place and the number of slum properties diminishing.;;;X
FRA_1945_DESC;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;;;X
FRA_1950_DESC;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;;;X
FRA_1953_DESC;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nOn 13 October 1946, a new constitution established the Fourth Republic. The Fourth Republic comprised under a parliamentary form of government controlled by a series of coalitions. During the next 16 years the French Colonial Empire would disintegrate. Israel was established in 1948, and France was one of the fiercest supporters of the Jewish state, supplying it with extensive weaponry it used during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The French Republic needed an alliance with Israel to secure the Suez Canal from potential threats in a context of decolonisation. In Indochina the French government was facing the Viet Minh communist rebels and lost its Indochinese colonies during the First Indochina War in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam was divided in two states while Cambodia and Laos were made independent. France left Indochina only to be replaced there by the United States, which would soon be engaged in the long Vietnam War.;;;X
FRA_1956_DESC;"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";;;X
FRA_1959_DESC;"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";"Germany surrendered effective 8 May 1945 with the German Instrument of Surrender, ending the European theater of World War II. General Leclerc later, along with the battleship Richelieu, represented France at Tokyo during the Japanese surrender, ending World War II completely.\n\nIn 1956 a crisis struck French colonies, this time in Egypt. The Suez Canal, having been built by the French government, belonged to the French Republic and was operated by the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Great Britain had bought the Egyptian share from Isma'il Pasha and was the second largest owner of the canal before the crisis. The Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal despite French and British opposition; he estimated a European answer was most unlikely to happen. Great Britain and France attacked Egypt and built an alliance with Israel against Nasser. Israel attacked from the east, Britain from Cyprus and France from Algeria. Egypt, the most powerful Arab state of the time, was defeated in a mere few days.\n\nGeneral de Gaulle was elected president in 1958 and made the French Force de Frappe, the nuclear power, a priority of the French Defence. France then adopted the dissuasion du faible au fort doctrine which meant a Soviet attack on France would only bring total destruction to both sides. The May 1958 seizure of power in Algiers by French army units and French settlers opposed to concessions in the face of Arab nationalist insurrection led to the fall of the French government and a presidential invitation to de Gaulle to form an emergency government to forestall the threat of civil war. The new constitution of the French Fifth Republic, introduced on 5 October 1958, gave greater powers to the presidency. Algeria became independent in 1962.";;;X
ITA_1945_DESC;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy.;;;X
ITA_1950_DESC;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.;;;X
ITA_1953_DESC;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming.;;;X
ITA_1956_DESC;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;;;X
ITA_1959_DESC;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy and a divided society. Following Victor Emmanuel III's abdication, his son, the new king Umberto II, was pressured by the threat of another civil war to call a Constitutional Referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54 percent of the vote and Italy officially became a republic. All male members of the House of Savoy were barred from entering Italy, a ban which was only repealed in 2002. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, the eastern border area was annexed by Yugoslavia, while Italy lost all its overseas possessions. A new constitution was approved, setting up a parliamentary democracy. In 1947, under American pressure, the communist were expelled from the government. The Italian general election, 1948 saw a landslide victory for Christian Democrats, that dominated the system for the following forty years. Italy joined the Marshall Plan and NATO.\n\nBy 1950, the economy had largely stabilized and started booming. In 1957 Italy was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which later transformed into the European Union (EU). In 1950s and 1960s the country enjoyed prolonged economic boom, which was accompanied by a dramatic rise in the standard of living of ordinary Italians.;;;X
GRE_1945_DESC;"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.";;;X
GRE_1950_DESC;"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";;;X
GRE_1953_DESC;"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";;;X
GRE_1956_DESC;"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";;;X
GRE_1959_DESC;"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";"The Greek Civil War was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country. The civil war consisted on one side of the armed forces of the postwar non-Marxist Greek administrations, and on the other, communist-led forces, and key members of the former resistance organization (ELAS), the leadership of which was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription.\n\nThe victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War yet the civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarization; as a result, Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its Communist northern neighbours, both pro-Soviet and neutral, became strained.\n\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, Greece developed rapidly, initially with the help of the U.S. Marshall Plan's grants and loans, and later through growth in the tourism sector.";;;X
TUR_1945_DESC;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;;;X
TUR_1950_DESC;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.;;;X
TUR_1953_DESC;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;;;X
TUR_1956_DESC;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;;;X
TUR_1959_DESC;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II but entered on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945, as a ceremonial gesture and in 1945 became a charter member of the United Nations. Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale U.S. military and economic support.\n\nAfter participating with the United Nations forces in the Korean War, Turkey joined NATO in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean.;;;X
JAP_1945_DESC;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;After the collapse of the Empire of Japan, Japan was transformed into a democratic state with a revised democratic Constitution of Japan.  Japan came under the firm direction of American General Douglas MacArthur. The main American objective was to turn Japan into a peaceful nation and to establish democratic self-government. The occupation transformed the Japanese government into an engine of production, wealth redistribution, and social reform. Political reforms included a freely elected Japanese Diet (legislature) and universal adult suffrage. While Emperor Hirohito was allowed to retain his throne as a symbol of national unity, actual power was held by complex interlocking networks of elites.\n\nDuring the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.;;;X
JAP_1950_DESC;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;During the postwar period, Japan became an economic power state. This period is characterized by the US-Japan Alliance such as the United States Forces Japan. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was held, in which seven politicians were executed. Emperor Hirohito was not convicted, but instead was turned into a figurehead emperor. Shigeru Yoshida (1878–1967) played the central role as prime minister between 1946 and 1954 (with one interruption). His goal was rapid rebuilding Japan and cooperation with the American Occupation. He led Japan to adopt the 'Yoshida Doctrine', based on three tenets: economic growth as the primary national objective, no involvement in international political-strategic issues, and the provision of military bases to the United States.\n\nEntering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.;;;X
JAP_1953_DESC;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;;;X
JAP_1956_DESC;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;;;X
JAP_1959_DESC;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;Entering the Cold War with the Korean War, Japan came to be seen as an important ally of the US government. The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947. The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.\n\nThroughout the postwar period, Japan's economy continued to boom, with results far outstripping expectations. Given a massive boost by the Korean War, in which it acted as a major supplier to the UN force, Japan's economy embarked on a prolonged period of extremely rapid growth, led by the manufacturing sectors. Japan emerged as a significant power in many economic spheres, including steel working, car manufacturing and the manufacturing of electronic goods. Japan rapidly caught up with the West in foreign trade, GNP, and general quality of life.;;;X
AST_1945_DESC;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;Following World War II, the Chifley Labor government instigated a massive programme of European immigration. In 1945, Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell wrote 'If the experience of the Pacific War has taught us one thing, it surely is that seven million Australians cannot hold three million square miles of this earth's surface indefinitely'. Politically, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia.;;;X
AST_1950_DESC;Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';Following World War II, Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party of Australia dominated much of the immediate post war era, defeating the Labor government of Ben Chifley in 1949. Menzies became the country's longest-serving Prime Minister and the Liberal party, in coalition with the rural based Country Party, won every federal election until 1972.\n\nAs in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.';;;X
AST_1953_DESC;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;;;X
AST_1956_DESC;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;;;X
AST_1959_DESC;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;As in the United States in the early 1950s, allegations of communist influence in society saw tensions emerge in politics. Refugees from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe immigrated to Australia, while to Australia's north, Mao Zedong's Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and in June 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The Menzies government responded to a United States led United Nations Security Council request for military aid for South Korea and diverted forces from occupied Japan to begin Australia's involvement in the Korean War.\n\nMenzies presided over a period of sustained economic boom and the beginnings of sweeping social change – with the arrivals of rock and roll music and television in the 1950s. He remained a staunch supporter of links to the monarchy and Commonwealth of Nations and formalised an alliance with the United States, but also launched post-war trade with Japan, beginning a growth of Australian exports of coal, iron ore and mineral resources that would steadily climb until Japan became Australia's largest trading partner.'\n\nAustralia enjoyed significant growth in prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, with increases in both living standards and in leisure time. The manufacturing industry, previously playing a minor part in an economy dominated by primary production, greatly expanded.;;;X
SOV_1945_DESC;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;;;X
SOV_1950_DESC;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union rebuilt and expanded its economy, while maintaining its strictly centralized control. It aided post-war reconstruction in the countries of Eastern Europe, while turning them into satellite states, binding them in a military alliance (the Warsaw Pact) in 1955, and an economic organization (The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon) from 1949 to 1991. Later, the Comecon supplied aid to the eventually victorious Chinese Communist Party, and saw its influence grow elsewhere in the world. Fearing its ambitions, the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, became its enemies. In the ensuing Cold War, the two sides clashed indirectly using mostly proxies.;;;X
SOV_1953_DESC;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.;;;X
SOV_1956_DESC;"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";;;X
SOV_1959_DESC;"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";"Stalin died on 5 March 1953. Without a mutually agreeable successor, the highest Communist Party officials opted to rule the Soviet Union jointly. Nikita Khrushchev, who had won the power struggle by the mid-1950s, denounced Stalin's use of repression in 1956 and eased repressive controls over party and society. Moscow considered Eastern Europe to be a buffer zone for the forward defense of its western borders, and ensured its control of the region by transforming the Eastern European countries into satellite states. Soviet military force was used to suppress anti-Stalinist uprisings in Hungary and Poland in 1956. In the late 1950s, a confrontation with China regarding the USSR's rapprochement with the West and what Mao Zedong perceived as Khrushchev's revisionism led to the Sino–Soviet split.\n\nDuring this period, the Soviet Union continued to realize scientific and technological exploits: Launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957; a living dog, Laika in 1957; the first human being, Yuri Gagarin in 1961; the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova in 1963; Alexey Leonov, the first person to walk in space in 1965; the first soft landing on the moon by spacecraft Luna 9 in 1966 and the first moon rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. Khrushchev initiated 'The Thaw' (better known as Khrushchev's Thaw), a complex shift in political, cultural and economic life in the Soviet Union. This included some openness and contact with other nations and new social and economic policies with more emphasis on commodity goods, allowing living standards to rise dramatically while maintaining high levels of economic growth. Censorship was relaxed as well. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive.";;;X
U32_DESC;"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";;;X
U32_1945_DESC;"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";"In June 1945, as an implementation of the February Yalta Conference directives, according to the Soviet interpretation, a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was formed; it was soon recognized by the United States and many other countries. A communist rule and Soviet domination were apparent from the beginning: sixteen prominent leaders of the Polish anti-Nazi underground were brought to trial in Moscow in June 1945. In the immediate post-war years, the emerging communist rule was challenged by people and groups not reconciled with it and many thousands perished in the fight or were pursued by the security forces and executed.\n\nAlthough the Yalta agreement called for free elections, those held in January 1947 were controlled by the communists. From that time the communist-dominated ruling bloc was officially the only source of governmental authority.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.";;;X
U32_1950_DESC;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;After the War, Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was created (so named only in the communist constitution of 1952), effectively under the communist Polish United Workers' Party rule. During the most oppressive Stalinist period, terror, justified by the necessity to eliminate the reactionary subversion, was widespread. Many thousands of perceived opponents of the regime were arbitrarily tried and large numbers executed. The People's Republic was led by discredited Moscow's operatives such as Boles³aw Bierut, Jakub Berman and Konstantin Rokossovsky. In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nLarger rural estates and agricultural holdings as well as post-German property were redistributed through land reform and industry was nationalized beginning in 1944. The Three-Year Plan (1947–1949) continued with the rebuilding, socialization and restructuring of the economy. The rejection of the Marshall Plan (1947), however, made the aspirations of catching-up with the West European standard of living unrealistic.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people. Many historic sites, including central districts of war-destroyed Warsaw and Gdañsk (Danzig), were rebuilt at a great cost.;;;X
U32_1953_DESC;"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";"In 1953 and later, despite a partial thaw after Stalin's death, the persecution of the independent Polish Catholic Church intensified and its head, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyñski, was detained.\n\nThe government's economic high priority was the development of militarily useful heavy industry. State-run institutions, collectivization and cooperative entities were imposed, while even small-scale private enterprises were being eradicated. Stalinism introduced heavy political and ideological indoctrination in social life, culture and education. Great strides, however, were made in the areas of universal public education (including elimination of adult illiteracy), health care and recreational amenities for working people.\n\nIn March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics.";;;X
U32_1956_DESC;"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";;;X
U32_1959_DESC;"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";"In March 1956, after the 20th Soviet Party Congress in Moscow ushered in de-Stalinization, Edward Ochab was chosen to replace the deceased Bierut as the Polish Communist Party's First Secretary. Poland was rapidly overtaken by social restlessness and reformist undertakings; thousands of political prisoners were released and many people previously persecuted were officially rehabilitated. Riots by economically distressed workers in Poznañ ensued in June, giving rise to a new pattern in communist Poland's politics. Amidst the continuing social and national upheaval, in October there was a further shakeup in the party leadership. While retaining most traditional communist economic and social aims, the regime led by the new Polish Party's First Secretary W³adys³aw Gomu³ka began to liberalize internal life in Poland. The dependence on the Soviet Union was somewhat mollified and the state's relationships with the Church and Catholic lay activists were put on a new footing. Collectivization efforts were abandoned and agricultural land, unlike in other Comecon countries, had mostly remained a domain of private family farmers.\n\nSophisticated cultural life, to varying degrees involved in intelligentsia's opposition to the totalitarian system, developed under Gomu³ka and his successors. The creative process had often been compromised by state censorship. Nevertheless, significant productions were accomplished in fields such as literature, theater, cinema and music, among others. Journalism of veiled understanding and native varieties of popular trends and styles of western mass culture were well represented. Uncensored information and works generated by émigré circles were conveyed by a variety of channels, the Radio Free Europe being of foremost importance.";;;X
U13_DESC;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;;;X
U13_1945_DESC;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;;;X
U13_1950_DESC;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;;;X
U13_1953_DESC;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;Following the fall of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops occupied all of the country, and Hungary gradually became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. In internal political conflict, an estimated 2,000 people were executed and over 100,000 were imprisoned. Approximately 350,000 officials and intellectuals were purged from 1948 to 1956. Many freethinkers and democrats were secretly arrested and taken to inland or foreign concentration camps without any judicial sentence. Some 600,000 Hungarians were deported to Soviet labour camps after the Second World War and at least 200,000 died in captivity.\n\nMatyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell.;;;X
U13_1956_DESC;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;Matyas Rakosi adhered to a militarist, industrialising, and war compensation economic policy, and the standard of living fell. The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. The roughly 3,000-strong Hungarian resistance fought Soviet tanks using Molotov cocktails and machine pistols. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.;;;X
U13_1959_DESC;"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";"The rule of the Rakosi government led to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Hungary's temporary withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. The multi-party system was restored by the Prime Minister Imre Nagy. Many people were shot and killed by Soviet and Hungarian political police (AVH) at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, creating a nationwide uprising. Spontaneous revolutionary militias fought against the Soviet Army and the AVH in Budapest. During the Hungarian uprising, an estimated 20,000 people were killed, nearly all during the Soviet intervention. Nearly a quarter of a million people left the country in 1956 during the brief time that the borders were open.\n\nJanos Kadar was chosen by the Soviet party leadership to act as the head of the new government intended to replace Imre Nagy's coalition cabinet. In the reprisals following the crushing of the uprising by the Soviet troops, 21,600 mavericks (democrats, liberals, and reformist communists) were imprisoned; 13,000 interned; and 230 brought to trial and executed. Imre Nagy, the legal Prime Minister of the country, was condemned to death and executed in 1958.\n\nFollowing the invasion, Hungary was under Soviet military administration for a couple of months, but Kadar stabilized the political situation in a remarkably short time. In 1963, the government granted a general amnesty and released the majority of those imprisoned for their active participation in the uprising. Kadar proclaimed a new policy line, according to which the people were no longer compelled to profess loyalty to the party if they tacitly accepted the Socialist regime as a fact of life, in other words, 'Those who are not against us are with us,' as Kadar put it in one of his political speeches. Kádár introduced new planning priorities in the economy. Consumer goods and food were produced in greater volumes and military production was reduced to one-tenth of the pre-revolutionary level.";;;X
U27_DESC;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;;;X
U27_1945_DESC;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;The first Yugoslav post-war elections were set for 11 November 1945. By this time the coalition of parties backing the Partisans, the People's Liberation Front, had been renamed into the People's Front. The People's Front was primarily led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and represented by Josip Broz Tito. The reputation of both benefited greatly from their wartime exploits and decisive success, and they enjoyed genuine support among the populace. However, the old pre-war political parties were reestablished as well. However, while the elections themselves were fairly conducted by a secret ballot, the campaign that preceded them was highly irregular. The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere. Indeed, voting was on a single list of People's Front candidates with provision for opposition votes to be cast in separate voting boxes, but this procedure made electors identifiable by OZNA agents. The election results of 11 November 1945 were decisively in favor of the latter, with an average of 85 percent of voters of each federal state casting their ballot for the People's Front.\n\nOn 29 November 1945, the Constituent Assembly of Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy and declared the state a republic. The country's official name became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, and the six 'Federal States' became 'People's Republics'. Yugoslavia became a single-party state and was considered in its earliest years a model of communist orthodoxy.;;;X
U27_1950_DESC;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;The Tito–Stalin, or Yugoslav–Soviet split took place in the spring and early summer of 1948. In the West, Tito was then thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such. Previous tensions erupted over a number of issues and on 28 June 1948, the Cominform adopted the prepared text of a resolution, known in Yugoslavia as the 'Resolution of the Informbiro'. In it, the other Cominform (Informbiro) members expelled Yugoslavia, citing 'nationalist elements' that had 'managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership' of the KPJ. The resolution warned Yugoslavia that it was on the path back to bourgeois capitalism due to its nationalist, independence-minded positions, and accused the party itself of 'Trotskyism'. This was followed by the severing of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, beginning the period of Soviet–Yugoslav conflict between 1948 and 1955 known as the Informbiro Period.;;;X
U27_1953_DESC;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;After the break with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia found itself economically and politically isolated as the country's Eastern Bloc-oriented economy began to falter. At the same time, Stalinist Yugoslavs, known in Yugoslavia as 'cominformists', began fomenting civil and military unrest. A number of cominformist rebellions and military insurrections took place, along with acts of sabotage. However, the Yugoslav security service was quick and efficient in cracking down on insurgent activity. Tito began making overtures to the United States and the West. Consequently, Stalin's plans were thwarted as Yugoslavia began shifting its alignment. Welcoming the Yugoslav–Soviet rift, the West commenced a flow of economic aid in 1949, assisted in averting famine in 1950, and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit for the next decade. The United States began shipping weapons to Yugoslavia in 1951. Tito, however, was wary of becoming too dependent on the West as well, and military security arrangements concluded in 1953 as Yugoslavia refused to join NATO and began developing a significant military industry of its own. With the American response in the Korean War serving as an example of the West's commitment, Stalin began backing down from war with Yugoslavia.;;;X
U27_1956_DESC;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;;;X
U27_1959_DESC;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;During the 1950s Yugoslavia began a number of fundamental reforms, bringing about change in three major directions: rapid liberalization and decentralization of the country's political system, the institution of a new, unique economic system, and a diplomatic policy of non-alignment. Yugoslavia refused to take part in the communist Warsaw Pact and instead took a neutral stance in the Cold War and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement along with countries like India, Egypt and Indonesia, and pursued one of its center-left influences that promoted a non-confrontational policy towards the U.S.\n\nAfter the breakaway from the Soviet sphere, Yugoslavia formed its own variant of socialism, sometimes informally called 'Titoism'. A significant degree of free market enterprise was allowed internally as the state instituted a market socialist system. Economic control was delegated to the individual republics, with government departments in Belgrade becoming coordination councils for cooperation. With the new system, workers' councils controlled production and the vast majority of the profits, which were in turn distributed among the workers themselves (as opposed to the state or owners/stockholders). Industrial and infrastructure development programs were implemented as well, as the country finally began to develop a strong industrial sector.\n\nThis and other significant economic reforms of the period, helped along by western aid, revived Yugoslavia and created an economic boom. Employment doubled between 1950 and 1964, with unemployment falling to 6 percent in 1961. Despite the new mass of industrial laborers, the annual increase in wages was 6.2 percent per year, while industrial productivity increased by 12.7 percent annually.;;;X
CHC_1945_DESC;"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";;;X
CHC_1950_DESC;"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";;;X
CHC_1953_DESC;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;Following the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Mao's first goal was a total overhaul of the land ownership system, and extensive land reforms. China's old system of landlord ownership of farmland and tenant peasants was replaced with a distribution system in favor of poor/landless peasants. Mao laid heavy emphasis on class struggle and theoretical work, and in 1953 began various campaigns to persecute former landlords and merchants, including the execution of more powerful landlords. Many buildings of historical and cultural significance as well as countless artifacts were destroyed by the Maoist regime, since they were considered reminders of the 'feudal' past.;;;X
CHC_1956_DESC;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;;;X
CHC_1959_DESC;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;Mao believed that socialism would eventually triumph over all other ideologies, and following the First Five-Year Plan based on a Soviet-style centrally controlled economy, Mao took on the ambitious project of the Great Leap Forward in 1958, beginning an unprecedented process of collectivization in rural areas. Mao urged the use of communally organized iron smelters to increase steel production, pulling workers off of agricultural labor to the point that large amounts of crops rotted unharvested. Mao decided to continue to advocate these smelters despite a visit to a factory steel mill which proved to him that high quality steel could only be produced in a factory. He thought that ending the program would dampen peasant enthusiasm for his political mobilization, the Great Leap Forward.\n\nThe implementation of Maoist thought in China may have been responsible for over 70 million excessive deaths during peacetime, with the Great Leap Forward, Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957-58, and the Cultural Revolution. Because of Mao's land reforms during the Great Leap Forward, which resulted in massive famines, thirty million perished between 1958 and 1961. By the end of 1961 the birth rate was nearly cut in half because of malnutrition. Active campaigns, including party purges and 'reeducation' resulted in the imprisonment or execution of those deemed to hold views contrary to Maoist ideals. Mao's failure with the Leap reduced his power in government, whose administrative duties fell to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.;;;X
CHI_1945_DESC;"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Toward the end of the WW2, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread; battles raged not only for territories but also for the allegiance of cross-sections of the population. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos.";;;X
CHI_1950_DESC;"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";"Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the KMT and the CPC resumed, after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. Through the mediating influence of the United States a military truce was arranged in January 1946, but battles between the Kuomintang and Communists soon resumed. Realizing that no American efforts short of large-scale armed intervention could stop the coming war, the United States withdrew the American mission, headed by Gen. George C. Marshall, in early 1947. The Chinese Civil War became more widespread. The United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans and weapons but no combat support. Belatedly, the Republic of China government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of rampant government corruption and the accompanying political and economic chaos. By late 1948 the Kuomintang position was bleak. The demoralized and undisciplined Kuomintang troops proved to be no match for the motivated and disciplined Communist People's Liberation Army, earlier known as the Red Army. The Communists were well established in the north and northeast. By 1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When Chiang was defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, he retreated to Taiwan with his government and his most disciplined troops, along with most of the KMT leadership and a large number of their supporters; Chiang Kai-shek had taken effective control of Taiwan at the end of WWII as part of the overall Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of China troops.\n\nFollowing the Chinese Civil War and the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces over the Kuomintang forces of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan, Mao declared the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949.";;;X
CHI_1953_DESC;"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";;;X
CHI_1956_DESC;"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.";;;X
CHI_1959_DESC;"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";"When the civil war ended in 1949, 2 million refugees, predominantly from the Nationalist government, military, and business community, fled to Taiwan. On October 1, 1949 the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) was founded in mainland China by the victorious communists; several months before, Chiang Kai-shek had established a provisional ROC capital in Taipei and moved his government there from Nanjing.\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, post-war economic conditions compounded with the then-ongoing Chinese Civil War caused severe inflation across mainland China and in Taiwan, made worse by disastrous currency reforms and corruption. This gave way to the reconstruction process and new reforms. The KMT took control of Taiwan's monopolies that had been owned by the Japanese prior to World War II. The KMT authorities implemented a far-reaching and highly successful land reform program on Taiwan during the 1950s. The 375 Rent Reduction Act alleviated tax burden on peasants and another act redistributed land among small farmers and compensated large landowners with commodities certificates and stock in state-owned industries. Although this left some large landowners impoverished, others turned their compensation into capital and started commercial and industrial enterprises. These entrepreneurs were to become Taiwan's first industrial capitalists. Together with businessmen who fled from mainland China, they once again revived Taiwan's prosperity previously ceased along with Japanese withdrawal and managed Taiwan's transition from an agricultural to a commercial, industrial economy.\n\nFrom 1950 to 1965, Taiwan received a total of $1.5 billion in economic aid and $2.4 billion in military aid from the United States. Taiwan has developed steadily into a major international trading power and one of the highest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Tremendous prosperity on the island was accompanied by economic and social stability.";;;X
U72_DESC;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam. Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;;;X
U72_1945_DESC;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;;;X
U72_1950_DESC;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;;;X
U72_1953_DESC;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;North Vietnam was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976. It was officially the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and was proclaimed by Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1945. Vietnam was partitioned following the Geneva Conference at the end of the First Indochina War.\n\nDuring World War II, Vietnam was a French colony under Japanese occupation. Soon after Japan surrendered in 1945, the DRV was proclaimed in Hanoi, government for the entire country. Viet Minh leader Ho Chi Minh became head of the government while former emperor Bao Dai became 'supreme advisor.' Non-communist figures were ousted from the DRV on October 30 and fled to the South. In November, the French reoccupied Hanoi and the French Indochina War followed. Bao Dai became head of the Saigon government in 1949, which was then renamed the State of Vietnam.;;;X
U72_1956_DESC;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;;;X
U72_1959_DESC;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;Following the Geneva Accords of 1954,Vietnam was partitioned at the 17th parallel. The DRV became the government of North Vietnam while the State of Vietnam retained control in the South.\n\nThe Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. The French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of 'local commissions'. The United States countered with what became known as the 'American Plan,' with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. During the Vietnam War (1955–75), North Vietnam and its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China fought against the military of the Republic of Vietnam government, the US and its Free World Military allies, including Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and various smaller players. At one point, the U.S. had 600,000 troops in the South.;;;X
VIE_DESC;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;;;X
VIE_1945_DESC;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;;;X
VIE_1950_DESC;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;;;X
VIE_1953_DESC;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai.;;;X
VIE_1956_DESC;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum.;;;X
VIE_1959_DESC;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam, was a state which governed southern Vietnam until 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the 'State of Vietnam' (1949–55), and later as the 'Republic of Vietnam' (1955–75). Its capital was Saigon. The term 'South Vietnam' became common usage in 1954, when the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into communist and non-communist parts.\n\nSouth Vietnam's origins can be traced to the French colony of Cochinchina, which consisted of the southern third of Vietnam and was a subdivision of French Indochina. After World War II, the Vietminh, led by Ho Chi Minh, proclaimed the establishment of a Communist nation in Hanoi. In 1949, non-communist Vietnamese politicians formed a rival government in Saigon led by former emperor Bao Dai. Bao Dai was deposed by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in 1955, who proclaimed himself president after a referendum. After Diem was deposed in a military coup in 1963, there was a series of short-lived military governments. The Vietnam War began in 1959 with an uprising by Viet Cong forces supplied by North Vietnam.;;;X
SPA_1945_DESC;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country, while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the 'Chief' of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all 'fundamental law' to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the family heads could vote.\n\nIn 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;;;X
SPA_1950_DESC;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;;;X
SPA_1953_DESC;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.;;;X
SPA_1956_DESC;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;;;X
SPA_1959_DESC;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;In 1947, a law was approved through a referendum revived the Spanish monarchy with Franco as interim regent for life with sole right to appoint his successor. By delaying the issue of republic versus monarchy for his 36-year dictatorship, and by refusing to take up the throne himself in 1947, Franco sought to antagonize neither the monarchical Carlists (who preferred the restoration of a Bourbon), nor the republican 'old shirts', i.e. the original Falangists.\n\nThe Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco's victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated.\n\nOn the brink of bankruptcy, a combination of pressure from the USA, the IMF and technocrats from Opus Dei managed to “convince” the regime to adopt a free market economy in 1959 in what amounted to a mini coup d’etat which removed the old guard in charge of the economy, despite the opposition of Franco. This economic liberalisation was not, however, accompanied by political reforms and repression continued unabated, though these very reforms would lead to socio-economic changes in Spanish society which would make the regime’s continuation 16 years later untenable.;;;X
BRA_1945_DESC;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;;;X
BRA_1950_DESC;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;As World War II ended with Brazil participating on the Allied side, President Getulio Vargas moved to liberalize his own fascist-influenced Estado Novo regime. Vargas decreed an amnesty to political prisoners, including the chief of the Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes. He also introduced an electoral law and allowed political parties to campaign. Three political parties introduced themselves into the national political scene. The liberal and rightist parties of the opposition against Vargas created the National Democratic Union. The bureaucrats and supporters of the Estado Novo grouped in the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. Vargas also created the Brazilian Labour Party, to the left, to group the workers' and the laborers' unions. The Brazilian Communist Party, weakened during the dictatorship, was also legalised.\n\nThe Estado Novo ended when two of the most rightist supporters, the Minister of War Pedro Aurelio de Gois Monteiro and Eurico Gaspar Dutra, led a military coup on October 29, 1945. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, José Linhares was inaugurated as president of Brazil. Linhares guaranteed free and regular elections.\n\nVargas was forced to take a temporary retirement. General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president and served from 1946 to 1951. Vargas returned to politics in 1950 to win the presidential elections as the candidate of the Brazilian Labor Party (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro), taking office on January 31, 1951.;;;X
BRA_1953_DESC;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;The Vargas administration was hampered by an economic crisis, congressional opposition, and impatience among his supporters. He announced an ambitious industrialization plan and pursued a policy of nationalization of the country's natural resources. To reduce foreign dependency, he founded the Petrobras Brazilian state oil enterprise.\n\nBy 1954, Vargas faced opposition from the National Democratic Union and the military. The murder of Major Rubens Vaz, an associate of opposition newspaper editor Carlos Lacerda, by some of the president's bodyguards, known as the crime of 'Rua Tonelero', led to a reaction against Vargas. Army generals demanded his resignation. After failing to negotiate a temporary leave of absence, the isolated Vargas shot himself on August 24, 1954.;;;X
BRA_1956_DESC;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;;;X
BRA_1959_DESC;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;After Vargas' suicide in 1954, awaiting a seemingly inevitable military coup, the support base for Brazilian populism began to deteriorate. Vargas' first ouster from 1945–1951 and his suicide demonstrated that Brazilian populism had been deteriorating for some time. Brazilian populism lingered for another decade but in new forms. If corporatism was the hallmark of the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism, and developmentalism characterized the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nPopulism and economic nationalism were casualties of Juscelino Kubitschek's presidency (1956–1961) more than anything else. Campaigning on a platform of 'fifty years of progress in five', Kubitschek sought to achieve this progress with the aid of foreign investment, which in turn would be given generous incentives, such as profit remittances, low taxes, privileges for the importation of machinery, and donations of land. This influx of capital rapidly conquered domestic industry, unable to compete with the greater efficiency and expertise of foreign capital. Domestic manufacturers, once the core base of support for economic nationalism, were idly contented to become managers or partners of the multinationals. The urban bourgeoisie — the original base of Vargas' coalition — had little use for Brazilian populism any more, having outgrown state planning and having lost its autonomy. In a sense, Brazilian populism was a victim of its own success, fostering a middle class that would soon find state control threatening rather than protective.\n\nThe most notable manifestation of the nationalistic aspirations of the Kubitschek's was the construction of Brasília, Brazil's ultra-modern capital.;;;X
U05_DESC;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;;;X
U05_1945_DESC;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;Japan's World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared independence which they fought to secure during the subsequent Indonesian National Revolution. The Netherlands formally recognized Indonesian sovereignty at the 1949 Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference with the exception of the Netherlands New Guinea (Western New Guinea).t.;;;X
U05_1950_DESC;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;;;X
U05_1953_DESC;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;;;X
U05_1956_DESC;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;;;X
U05_1959_DESC;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;The Netherlands retained New Guinea when Indonesia became independent in 1949. The arguments of the Dutch government for this changed repeatedly over time. At any rate the Dutch policy with regard to New Guinea was strongly influenced by the Dutch position towards Indonesia. On the one hand the Netherlands wanted to use New Guinea as a Dutch sphere of influence in the region. On the other hand by developing New Guinea and emancipating the Papuan population the Netherlands wanted to vindicate itself as a responsible colonial power.\n\nIndonesia claimed New Guinea as part of its territory. The dispute over New Guinea was an important factor in the quick decline in bilateral relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia after Indonesian independence. Starting in 1962, under pressure from the international community and under threat of armed conflict with Indonesia, the Netherlands relinquished control and a series of events led to the eventual official annexation of New Guinea in 1969 to Indonesia.;;;X
U02_1945_DESC;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;;;X
U02_1950_DESC;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;;;X
U02_1953_DESC;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;;;X
U02_1956_DESC;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;;;X
U02_1959_DESC;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;;;X
IND_1945_DESC;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;19 September 1945 saw the British offer India limited autonomy within the British Empire. The All-India Congress debated between 20 through 23 September, but they rejected the proposition and demanded that Britain leave India immediately.\n\nAlso in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Positive propaganda for the Congress, helped in the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.\n\nLater that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither the mandate at home, the international support, nor the reliability of native forces for continuing to control an increasingly restless India, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.;;;X
IND_1950_DESC;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;Independent India's first years were marked with turbulent events — a massive exchange of population with Pakistan, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the integration of over 500 princely states to form a united nation. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India, drafted by a committee headed by B. R. Ambedkar, on 26 November 1949. India became a sovereign,democratic, republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950. Rajendra Prasad became the first President of India.\n\nIndia held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;;;X
IND_1953_DESC;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.;;;X
IND_1956_DESC;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;India held its first national elections under the Constitution in 1952, where a turnout of over 60 percent was recorded. The National Congress Party won an overwhelming majority, and Jawaharlal Nehru began a second term as Prime Minister. President Prasad was also elected to a second term by the electoral college of the first Parliament of India. Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;;;X
IND_1959_DESC;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;Prime Minister Nehru, with his charismatic brilliance, led the Congress to major election victories in 1957 and 1962. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society, and further legislated against caste discrimination and untouchability. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enroll India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools, colleges and institutions of advanced learning, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology were founded across the nation. Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for blue-collar workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations.\n\nNehru's foreign policy was the inspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which India was a co-founder. Nehru maintained friendly relations with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and encouraged the People's Republic of China to join the global community of nations. In 1956, when the Suez Canal Company was seized by the Egyptian government, an international conference voted 18-4 to take action against Egypt. India was one of the four backers of Egypt, along with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the USSR. Although Nehru disavowed nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity.;;;X
DFR_DESC;"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";;;X
DFR_1945_DESC;"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";"The total of German war dead was 8 percent to 10 percent out of a prewar population of 69,000,000, or between 5.5 million and 7 million people. This included 4.5 million in the military, and between 1 and 2 million civilians. There was chaos as 11 million foreign workers and POWs left, while 14 million displaced refugees from the east and soldiers returned home.\n\nAt the Potsdam Conference, Germany was divided into four military occupation zones by the Allies and did not regain independence until 1949. The provinces east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (the Oder-Neisse line) were transferred to Poland, Lithuania, and Russia (Kaliningrad oblast); the 6.7 million Germans living in Poland and the 2.5 million in Czechoslovakia were forced to move west, although most had already left when the war ended.\n\nDenazification removed, imprisoned, or executed most top officials of the old regime, but most middle and lower ranks of civilian officialdom were not seriously affected. Allied economic policy originally was one of industrial disarmament plus building the agricultural sector. In the western sectors, most of the industrial plants had minimal bomb damage and the Allies dismantled 5 percent of the industrial plants for reparations. However, deindustrialization became impractical and the U.S. instead called for a strong industrial base in Germany so it could stimulate European economic recovery.";;;X
DFR_1950_DESC;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;In 1949, the three western occupation zones (American, British, and French) were combined into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany). The government was formed under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his conservative CDU/CSU coalition. The CDU/CSU was in power during most of the period since 1949. The capital was Bonn until it was moved to Berlin in 1990.\n\nWest Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;;;X
DFR_1953_DESC;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nThe most dramatic and successful policy event was the currency reform of 1948. On 21 June 1948, the Western Allies withdrew the old currency and replaced it with the new Deutsche Mark at the rate of 1 new per 10 old. This wiped out 90 percent of government and private debt, as well as private savings. Prices were decontrolled, and labor unions agreed to accept a 15 percent wage increase, despite the 25 percent rise in prices. The result was that prices of German export products held steady, while profits and earnings from exports soared and were poured back into the economy. The currency reforms were simultaneous with the $1.4 billion in Marshall Plan money coming in from the United States, which was used primarily for investment.;;;X
DFR_1956_DESC;"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";;;X
DFR_1959_DESC;"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";"West Germany enjoyed prolonged economic growth beginning in the early 1950s (Wirtschaftswunder or 'Economic Miracle'). Industrial production doubled from 1950 to 1957, and gross national product grew at a rate of 9 or 10 percent per year, providing the engine for economic growth of all of Western Europe. Labor union supported the new policies with postponed wage increases, minimized strikes, support for technological modernization, and a policy of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which involved a satisfactory grievance resolution system as well as requiring representation of workers on the boards of large corporations. The recovery was accelerated by the currency reform of June 1948, U.S. gifts of $1.4 billion as part of the Marshall Plan, the breaking down of old trade barriers and traditional practices, and the opening of the global market.\n\nWest Germany played a central role in the creation of European cooperation; it joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1958.";;;X
DDR_DESC;"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";;;X
DDR_1945_DESC;"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";;;X
DDR_1950_DESC;"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";"Five months after declaration of the western Federal Republic of Germany, on October 7, 1949, the German Economic Commission formed a provisional government and proclaimed establishment of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Wilhelm Pieck, a party leader, was elected first president. On October 9, the Soviet Union withdrew her East Berlin headquarters, and subsequently it outwardly surrendered the functions of the military government to the new German state.\n\nThe SED controlled the National Front coalition, a federation of all political parties and mass organizations that preserved political pluralism. The 1949 constitution formally established a democratic federal republic and created the Upper house which was called Landerkammer (States Chamber) and the Volkskammer (People's Chamber). The Volkskammer, according to the East German constitution the highest state body, was vested with legislative sovereignty. The SED controlled the Council of Ministers and reduced the legislative function of the Volkskammer to that of acclamation. Election to the Volkskammer and the state legislatures (later replaced by district legislatures) was based on a joint ballot prepared by the National Front; voters could register their approval or disapproval.";;;X
DDR_1953_DESC;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;Soviet Union. Malenkov's policy, which aimed at improvement in the standard of living, stressed a shift in investment toward light industry and trade and a greater availability of consumer goods. The SED, in addition to shifting emphasis from heavy industry to consumer goods, initiated a program for alleviating economic hardships. This led to a reduction of delivery quotas and taxes, the availability of state loans to private business, and an increase in the allocation of production material.\n\nWhile the New Course increased the consumer goods workers could get, there were still high production quotas. When work quotas were raised in 1953, it led to the 1953 Uprising. Strikes and demonstrations happened in major industrial centers. The workers demanded economic reforms. The Volkspolizei and the Soviet Army suppressed the uprising, in which approximately 100 participants were killed.;;;X
DDR_1956_DESC;"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";;;X
DDR_1959_DESC;"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";"In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev repudiated Stalinism. Around this time, an academic intelligentsia within the SED leadership demanded reform. To this end, Wolfgang Harich issued a platform advocating radical changes in East Germany. In late 1956, he and his associates were quickly purged from the SED ranks and imprisoned.\n\nAn SED party plenum in July 1956 confirmed Ulbricht's leadership and presented the Second Five-Year Plan (1956–60). The plan employed the slogan 'modernization, mechanization, and automation' to emphasize the new focus on technological progress. At the plenum, the regime announced its intention to develop nuclear energy, and the first nuclear reactor in East Germany was activated in 1957. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and renewed emphasis on heavy industry.\n\nThe Second Five-Year Plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization and completion of the nationalization of the industrial sector. By 1958 the agricultural sector still consisted primarily of the 750,000 privately owned farms that comprised 70 percent of all arable land; only 6,000 Agricultural Cooperatives (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften—LPGs) had been formed. In 1958–59 the SED placed quotas on private farmers and sent teams to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested by the SSD.";;;X
CUB_1945_DESC;"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";;;X
CUB_1950_DESC;"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";;;X
CUB_1953_DESC;"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";"Fulguencio Batista, who was expected to win only a small minority of the 1952 presidential vote, seized power in Cuba in an almost bloodless coup three months before the election was to take place. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended the balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1953 and Batista was re-elected. Opposition parties mounted a blistering campaign, and continued to do so, using the Cuban free press throughout Batista's tenure in office.\n\nAlthough corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Wages rose significantly; according to the International Labor Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba was the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than in developed nations such as Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, and France. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.";;;X
CUB_1956_DESC;"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"Although corruption was rife under Batista, Cuba did flourish economically during his regime. Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in Latin America by the end of the Batista era.\n\nIn 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";;;X
CUB_1959_DESC;"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";"In 1952, Fidel Castro, a young lawyer who was running for a seat in the Chamber of Representatives for the Partido Ortodoxo, circulated a petition to depose Batista's government on the grounds that it had illegitimately suspended the electoral process. Castro then resolved to use armed force to overthrow Batista; he gathered supporters, and on 26 July 1953 led an attack on the Moncada Barracks near Santiago de Cuba. The attack ended in failure – Castro was captured, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he was released by the Batista government in 1955. Castro subsequently went into exile in Mexico, where he met the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. While in Mexico, he organized the 26th of July Movement with the goal of overthrowing Batista. In December 1956, he led a group of 82 fighters to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, landing in the eastern part of the island. Despite a pre-landing rising in Santiago by Frank Pais and his followers among the urban pro-Castro movement, most of Castro's men were promptly killed, dispersed or taken prisoner by Batista's forces.\n\nCastro managed to escape into the Sierra Maestra mountains with about 12–17 effectives, aided by the urban and rural opposition, including Celia Sanchez and the bandits of Cresencio Perez's family. He then began a guerrilla campaign against the regime.\n\nWith the military situation becoming untenable, Batista fled on 1 January 1959, and Castro took over. Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island.";;;X
U28_DESC;"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";"Until Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948, Albania acted like a Yugoslav satellite and Tito aimed to use his choke hold on the Albanian party to incorporate the entire country into Yugoslavia. Albania became dependent on Soviet aid and know-how after the break with Yugoslavia in 1948. In February 1949, Albania gained membership in the communist bloc's organization for coordinating economic planning, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). Tirana soon entered into trade agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. Soviet and East European technical advisers took up residence in Albania, and the Soviet Union also sent Albania military advisers and built a submarine installation on Sazan Island.\n\nAnxious to pay homage to Stalin, Albania's rulers implemented new elements of the Stalinist economic system. In 1949 Albania adopted the basic elements of the Soviet fiscal system, under which state enterprises paid direct contributions to the treasury from their profits and kept only a share authorized for self-financed investments and other purposes. In 1951, the Albanian government launched its first five-year plan, which emphasized exploiting the country's oil, chromite, copper, nickel, asphalt, and coal resources; expanding electricity production and the power grid; increasing agricultural output; and improving transportation. The government began a program of rapid industrialization after the APL's Second Party Congress and a campaign of forced collectivization of farmland in 1955.";;;X
U29_DESC;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;During the postwar period the country was known as the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' and was ruled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Its leader Dimitrov was close to the Yugoslav Communist leader Tito and believed that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, as closely related South Slav peoples, should form a federation. This idea was not favoured by Stalin and there have long been suspicions that Dimitrov's sudden death in July 1949 was not accidental, although this has never been proven. It coincided with Stalin's expulsion of Tito from the Cominform and was followed by a 'Titoist' witch hunt in Bulgaria. This culminated in the show trial and execution of Deputy Prime Minister Traicho Kostov. The elderly Prime Minister Kolarov died in 1950 and power then passed to a Stalinist, Vulko Chervenkov.\n\nBulgaria's Stalinist phase lasted less than five years. Under his leadership, agriculture was collectivised, peasant rebellions were crushed, and a massive industrialisation campaign was launched. Labor camps were set up and at the height of the repression housed about 100,000 people. The Orthodox Patriarch was confined to a monastery and the Church placed under state control.\n\nIn 1950 diplomatic relations with the U.S. were broken off. But Chervenkov's support base in the Communist Party was too narrow for him to survive long once his patron Stalin was gone. Stalin died in March 1953 and in March 1954 Chervenkov was deposed as Party Secretary with the approval of the new leadership in Moscow and replaced by Todor Zhivkov. Chervenkov stayed on as Prime Minister until April 1956, when he was dismissed and replaced by Anton Yugov.\n\nDuring the 1960s, Zhivkov initiated reforms and passed some market-oriented policies on an experimental level. By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.;;;X
U30_DESC;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;In 1947, King Michael I was forced by the Communists to abdicate and leave the country, Romania was proclaimed a republic, and remained under direct military and economic control of the USSR until the late 1950s. During this period, Romania's resources were drained by the 'SovRom' agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union.\n\nThe leader of Romania from 1948 to his death in 1965 was Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the First Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, who first sowed the seeds of greater independence from the Soviet Union by persuading Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to withdraw troops from Romania in April 1958.During the 1947–1962 period, many people though were arbitrarily killed or imprisoned for political, economic or unknown reasons: detainees in prisons or camps, deported persons, persons under house arrest, and administrative detainees.;;;X
U31_DESC;"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";"The Third Republic came into being in April 1945. Its government, installed at Kosice on April 4 and moved to Prague in May, was a National Front coalition. The popular enthusiasm evoked by the Soviet armies of liberation (which was decided by compromise of Allies and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta conference in 1944) benefited the communist party. Czechoslovaks, bitterly disappointed by the West at the Munich Agreement, responded favorably to both the party and the Soviet alliance. Reunited into one state after the war, the Czechs and Slovaks set national elections for the spring of 1946, when democratic parties won plurality of the vote. In 1947, Stalin summoned Gottwald to Moscow; upon his return to Prague, the communists demonstrated a significant radicalization of its tactics. On February 20, 1948, the twelve non-communist ministers resigned, in part, to induce Benes to call for early elections. On February 25, Benes, perhaps fearing Soviet intervention, capitulated. He accepted the resignations of the dissident ministers and received a new cabinet list from Gottwald, thus completing, under the cover of superficial legality, the communist takeover.\n\nCzechoslovakia was declared a 'people's democracy' (until 1960) – a preliminary step toward socialism and, ultimately, communism. Bureaucratic centralism under the direction of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia leadership was introduced. The ideological principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism pervaded cultural and intellectual life.The economy was committed to comprehensive central planning and abolition of private ownership of capital. Czechoslovakia became a satellite state of the Soviet Union; it was a founding member of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) in 1949 and of the Warsaw Pact in 1955.";;;X
ALG_DESC;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;In August 1947, the French National Assembly approved the government-proposed Organic Statute of Algeria. This law called for the creation of an Algerian Assembly with one house representing Europeans and 'meritorious' Muslims and the other representing the remaining 8 million or more Muslims. Muslim and colon deputies alike abstained or voted against the statute but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Muslims because it fell short of their expectations and the colons because it went too far.\n\nThe Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), brutal and long, was the most recent major turning point in the country's history. Although often fratricidal, it ultimately united Algerians and seared the value of independence and the philosophy of anticolonialism into the national consciousness. Abusive tactics of the French Army remains a controversial subject in France to this day.\n\nIn the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, the National Liberation Front launched attacks throughout Algeria in the opening salvo of a war of independence. An important watershed in this war was the massacre of civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville in August 1955. Eventually, protracted negotiations led to a cease-fire signed by France and the FLN on March 18, 1962, at Evian, France. Between 350.000 and 1 million Algerians are estimated to have died during the war, and more than 2 million, out of a total Muslim population of 9 or 10 million, were made into refugees or forcibly relocated into government-controlled camps. Much of the countryside and agriculture was devastated, along with the modern economy, which had been dominated by urban European settlers (the pied-noirs).\n\nThe referendum was held in Algeria on 1 July 1962, and France declared Algeria independent on 3 July. On 8 September 1963, a constitution was adopted by referendum, and later that month, Ahmed Ben Bella was formally elected the first president.;;;X
BUR_DESC;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;On 19 July 1947 U Saw, a conservative pre-war Prime Minister of Burma, engineered the assassination of Aung San and several members of his cabinet, while meeting in the Secretariat. Thakin Nu, the Socialist leader, was now asked to form a new cabinet, and he presided over Burmese independence on 4 January 1948. The popular sentiment to part with the British was so strong at the time that Burma opted not to join the British Commonwealth, unlike India or Pakistan.\n\nThe first years of Burmese independence were marked by successive insurgencies by the Red Flag Communists led by Thakin Soe, the White Flag Communists led by Thakin Than Tun, the White-band PVO led by Bo La Yaung, a member of the Thirty Comrades, army rebels calling themselves the Revolutionary Burma Army (RBA) led by Communist officers Bo Zeya, Bo Yan Aung and Bo Ye Htut – all three of them members of the Thirty Comrades, Arakanese Muslims or the Mujahid, and the Karen National Union (KNU). After the Communist victory in China in 1949 remote areas of Northern Burma were for many years controlled by an army of Kuomintang (KMT) forces under the command of General Li Mi.\n\nBurma accepted foreign assistance in rebuilding the country in these early years, but continued American support for the Chinese Nationalist military presence in Burma finally resulted in the country rejecting most foreign aid, refusing to join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and supporting the Bandung Conference of 1955. Burma generally strove to be impartial in world affairs and was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Israel and the People's Republic of China.\n\nBy 1958, the country was largely beginning to recover economically, but was beginning to fall apart politically due to a split in the AFPFL into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein.;;;X
CAM_DESC;"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";"In 1955, the outlawed Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), based largely among the Bamileke and Bassa ethnic groups, began an armed struggle for independence in French Cameroon. This rebellion continued, with diminishing intensity, even after independence. Estimates of death from this conflict vary from thousands to hundreds of thousands.\n\nOn 16 April 1957 a decree was passed which made Cameroon a State. It took back its former status of associated territory as a member of the French Union. Its inhabitants became Cameroonian citizens, Cameroonian institutions were created under the sign of parliamentary democracy. On 12 June 1958 the Legislative Assembly of Cameroon asked the French government to: 'Accord independence to the State of Cameroon at the ends of their trusteeship. Transfer every competence related to the running of internal affairs of Cameroon to Cameroonians`. On 19 October 1958 France recognized the right of her United Nations trust territory of the Cameroons to choose independence.\n\nFrench Cameroons achieved independence on January 1, 1960 as the Republic of Cameroon. After Guinea, it was the second of France's colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa to be granted independence. The following year, on October 1, 1961, the largely Muslim northern two-thirds of British Cameroons voted to join Nigeria; the largely Christian southern third, Southern Cameroons, voted to join with the Republic of Cameroon to form the Federal Republic of Cameroon. The formerly French and British regions each maintained substantial autonomy. Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-educated Fulani, was chosen president of the federation in 1961.";;;X
CMB_DESC;On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';On 9 March 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea, following a formal request by the Japanese, the French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year though. Sihanouk's 'royal crusade for independence' resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and to withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.\n\nNeutrality was the central element of Cambodian foreign policy during the 1950s and 1960s. By the mid-1960s, parts of Cambodia's eastern provinces were serving as bases for North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (NVA/NLF) forces operating against South Vietnam, and the port of Sihanoukville was being used to supply them.\n\nThroughout the 1960s, domestic Cambodian politics became polarized. Opposition to the government grew within the middle class and leftists including Paris-educated leaders like Son Sen, Ieng Sary, and Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot), who led an insurgency under the clandestine Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Sihanouk called these insurgents the Khmer Rouge, literally the 'Red Khmer.';;;X
KOR_DESC;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;On August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea was formally established, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. The main policy of the First Republic of South Korea was anti-communism and 'unification by expanding northward'. The South's military was neither sufficiently equipped nor prepared, but the Rhee administration was determined to reunify Korea by military force with aid from the United States. However, in the second parliamentary elections held on May 30, 1950, the majority of seats went to independents, confirming the lack of support and the fragile state of the nation.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Oscillating battle lines inflicted a high number of civilian casualties and wrought immense destruction. With the People's Republic of China's entry on behalf of North Korea in late 1950, the fighting came to a stalemate close to the original line of demarcation. Armistice negotiations, initiated in July 1951, finally concluded on July 27, 1953 at Panmunjeom.\n\nAfter the armistice, South Korea experienced political turmoil under years of autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee, which was ended by student revolt in 1960. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional steps to cement his control of government. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite the society's resentment, Rhee's administration rigged presidential elections and won by a landslide. On 19 April 1960, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets, in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government, and after an escalated protest with university professors taking to the streets on April 25, Rhee handed in his formal resignation on April 26.;;;X
PRK_DESC;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;After the August 15, 1945 Japanese surrender, the Russians entered the major port city of Wonsan on August 21. In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung had arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee.\n\nBy 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations joined the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. The establishment of a command economy followed.\n\nOn June 25, 1950, the northern forces escalated border clashes into a full-fledged offensive and crossed the parallel in large numbers. Due to a combination of surprise, superior military forces, and a poorly armed South Korean army, the Northern forces quickly captured Seoul and Syngman Rhee and his government was forced to flee further south. By mid July, North Korean troops overwhelmed the South Korean and allied American units defending South Korea and forced them back to a defensive perimeter in south-east South Korea known as the Pusan Perimeter. However, the North Koreans failed to unify the peninsula when foreign powers entered the civil war. The war essentially became a bloody stalemate for the next two years. The front was stabilized in 1953 along what eventually became the current Armistice Line. After long negotiations, the two sides agreed on a border truce.\n\nReconstruction of the DPRK proceeded with Chinese and Soviet assistance, a task that took the next few years. Meanwhile, Kim began gradually consolidating his power. Potential rivals from other groups  were purged. Then in 1956, North Korea, Albania, and China were among the loudest opponents of de-Stalinization, the brief attempt at political liberalization in North Korea was ended, and by 1961 the last remaining opposition to Kim had disappeared.;;;X
MAL_DESC;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;French Sudan was administered as part of the Federation of French West Africa and supplied labor to France’s colonies on the coast of West Africa. In 1958 the renamed Sudanese Republic obtained complete internal autonomy and joined the French Community. In early 1959, the Sudanese Republic and Senegal formed the Federation of Mali. On 31 March 1960 France agreed to the Federation of Mali becoming fully independent. On 20 June 1960 the Federation of Mali became an independent country and Modibo Keita became its first President.\n\nFollowing the withdrawal of Senegal from the federation in August 1960, the former Sudanese Republic became the Republic of Mali on 22 September 1960. President Modibo Keita, whose Sudanese Union-African Democratic Rally (US/RDA) party had dominated pre-independence politics (as a member of the African Democratic Rally), moved quickly to declare a single-party state and to pursue a socialist policy based on extensive nationalization. Keita withdrew from the French Community and also had close ties to the Eastern bloc.;;;X
TUN_DESC;"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";"An independence movement lasting many decades eventually prevailed, leading to the end of the French protectorate. In 1954 the Tunisian struggle and consequent civil disturbances resulted in the start of negotiations for autonomy between France and the Neo Destour political party (essentially under Habib Bourguiba). The agreed Convention of April, 1955, stated that France would retain control of the army and foreign affairs while granting autonomy. Bourguiba was released from prison by the French to a tumultuous welcome. This compromise, however, split the Neo Destour and the resolution of intra-party strife signalled that Neo Destour would pursue a moderate path. The French then terminated their protectorate over Morocco, in order to concentrate their forces in Algeria. In reaction, and following the strong public opinion voiced by Tunisians, Bourguiba pressed for independence. The French, overcoming the heated objections of the French settlers, eventually acceded and protocols were drafted. On 20 March 1956, Tunisia achieved its full sovereignty. In July Tunisia's application for membership in the United Nations was accepted.\n\nThe French conceived an independent Tunisia as a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VIII al-Amin Bey (Lamine or Amin Bey). The Bey was an institution that dated back to the early Ottoman era. The prior Bey Muhammad VII al-Munsif (Moncef Bey) had been a popular nationalist, but Amin Bey was both considered by some to be compromised by the French, by others to be a youssefist. Already scheduled elections were held on 25 March 1956; they were swept by the Neo Destour party, whose leader Habib Bourguiba (Habib Abu Ruqaiba) became prime minister. On 25 July 1957, the monarchy was abolished, the beylical office terminated, and Tunisia proclaimed a Republic. The assembly then made Bourguiba the first president, of what would be a single-party state.";;;X
JOR_DESC;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;On 17 January 1946 the British Government announced intention to take steps to establish Trans-Jordan as a fully independent and sovereign state. The mandate for Transjordan ended on 22 May 1946 with the signing of the Treaty of London and Trans-Jordan gained full independence. On 25 May 1946 the country became the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan when the ruling 'Amir' was re-designated as 'King'. Transjordan participated in the war between the Arab states and the newly founded State of Israel. The Armistice Agreements of April 3, 1949 left Jordan in control of the West Bank, without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.\n\nIn March 1949, Transjordan announced its annexation of what has become commonly known as the West Bank. Only Britain recognized this annexation (excluding Jerusalem). On 25 April 1949, the country was renamed 'the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan' to include officially those portions of Palestine annexed by King Abdullah. The United States, other Western powers and the United Nations maintained the position that ultimate sovereignty was subject to future agreement.\n\nThe 1950s have been labelled as a time of 'Jordan's Experiment with Liberalism'. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association were guaranteed in the newly written constitution as with the already firmly established freedom of religion doctrine. Jordan had one of the freest and most liberal societies in the Middle East and in the greater Arab world during the 1950s and early 1960s.\n\nIn February 1958, following announcement of the merger of Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, Iraq and Jordan announced the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan, also known as the Arab Union. The Union was dissolved in August 1958.;;;X
SUD_DESC;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;In 1943, the British began preparing the north for self-government, establishing a North Sudan Advisory Council to advise on the governance of the six North Sudanese provinces. Then, in 1946, the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate north and south Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they would in future be governed by a common administrative authority with the north.\n\nIn February 1953, the United Kingdom and Egypt concluded an agreement providing for Sudanese self-government and self-determination. The transitional period toward independence began with the inauguration of the first parliament in 1954. On 18 August 1955 a revolt in the army in Torit Southern Sudan broke out, which although quickly suppressed, led to a low level guerrilla insurgency by former Southern rebels, and marked the beginning of the First Sudanese Civil War. On 15 December 1955 the Premier of Sudan Ismail al-Azhari announced that Sudan would unilaterally declare independence in four days time. On 19 December 1955 the Sudanese parliament, unilaterally and unanimously, declared Sudan's independence. The British and Egyptian Governments recognized the independence of Sudan on 1 January 1956. However, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises to southerners to create a federal system, which led to a mutiny by southern army officers that sparked seventeen years of civil war (1955–1972).\n\nThe National Unionist Party (NUP), under Prime Minister Ismail al-Azhari, dominated the first cabinet, which was soon replaced by a coalition of conservative political forces. In 1958, following a period of economic difficulties and political maneuvering that paralyzed public administration, Chief of Staff Major General Ibrahim Abboud overthrew the parliamentary regime in a bloodless coup d'état.;;;X
RHO_DESC;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a semi-independent state in southern Africa that existed from 1953 to the end of 1963, comprising the former self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It was a federal realm of the British Crown – neither a colony nor a dominion, although the British Sovereign was represented by a governor general, as usual for dominions. It was intended eventually to become a dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations.\n\nThe Federation was established on 1 August 1953, with the aim of forging a middle way between a fully independent majority-ruled state and the white-dominated territories of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique. It was intended to be a permanent entity, but ultimately crumbled because the black African nationalists wanted a greater share of power than the dominant minority white population was willing to concede. The rulers of the new black African states were united in wanting to end colonialism in Africa. With most of the world moving away from colonialism during this time (late 1950s – early 1960s), the United Kingdom was subjected to pressure to de-colonize from both the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. These groups supported the aspirations of the black African nationalists and accepted their claims to speak on behalf of the people.\n\nThe federation officially ended on 31 December 1963. During 1964, Northern Rhodesia gained independence from the UK as the new nation of Zambia and Nyasaland gained independence as the new nation of Malawi. Southern Rhodesia became known as Rhodesia and has been Zimbabwe since 1980.;;;X
MLY_DESC;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;In 1944 the British drew up plans plans for a Malayan Union, which would turn the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, plus Penang and Malacca (but not Singapore), into a single crown colony, with a view towards independence. The Bornean territories and Singapore were left out as it was thought this would make the union more difficult to achieve. The Malayan Union was thus established in 1946, and was dissolved in 1948 and replaced by the Federation of Malaya, which restored the autonomy of the rulers of the Malay states under British protection.\n\nMeanwhile the Communists were moving towards open insurrection. The Malayan Emergency as it was known, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and involved a long anti-insurgency campaign by Commonwealth troops in Malaya. The British strategy, which proved ultimately successful, was to isolate the MCP from its support base by a combination of economic and political concessions to the Chinese and the resettlement of Chinese squatters into 'New Villages' in 'white areas' free of MCP influence.\n\nIn 1961, Abdul Rahman mooted the idea of forming 'Malaysia', which would consist of Brunei, Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, all of which had been British colonies. The reasoning behind this was that this would allow the central government to control and combat communist activities, especially in Singapore. It was also feared that if Singapore achieved independence, it would become a base for Chinese chauvinists to threaten Malayan sovereignty. To balance out the ethnic composition of the new nation, the other states, whose Malay and indigenous populations would cancel out the Singaporean Chinese majority, were also included. After negotiations in July 1963, it was agreed that Malaysia would come into being on 31 August 1963, consisting of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. Malaysia formally came into being on 16 September 1963.;;;X
LBY_DESC;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;On 24 December 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's only monarch.\n\n1951 also saw the enactment of the first Libyan Constitution. The enactment of the Libyan Constitution was significant in that it was the first piece of legislation to formally entrench the rights of Libyan citizens following the post-war creation of the Libyan nation state. Following on from the intense UN debates during which Idris had argued that the creation of a single Libyan state would be of benefit to the regions of Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica, the Libyan government was keen to formulate a constitution which contained many of the entrenched rights common to European and North American nation states. Though not creating a secular state – Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State – the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations, 'without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions'.\n\nThe discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world's poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.;;;X
LAO_DESC;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;When Japan surrendered, Lao nationalists declared Laos independent, but by early 1946, French troops had reoccupied the country and conferred limited autonomy on Laos. During the First Indochina War, the Indochinese Communist Party formed the Pathet Lao resistance organization committed to Lao independence.\n\nLaos gained full independence on 22 October 1953. Elections were held in 1955, and the first coalition government, led by Prince Souvanna Phouma, was formed in 1957. The coalition government collapsed in 1958 under pressure from the United States. In 1960 Captain Kong Le staged a coup when the cabinet was away at the royal capital of Luang Prabang and demanded reformation of a neutralist government. The second coalition government, once again led by Souvanna Phouma, was not successful in holding power. Rightist forces under General Phoumi Nosavan drove out the neutralist government from power later that same year.;;;X
GUY_DESC;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;A the end of World War II, political awareness and demands for independence grew in all segments of society. The immediate postwar period witnessed the founding of Guyana's major political parties. The 1950s also saw the beginning of a long and acrimonious struggle between the country's two dominant neck political personalities—Cheddi Jagan and Linden Forbes Burnham.\n\nOnce the new constitution was adopted, elections were set for 1953. The coalition of lower-class Afro-Guyanese and rural Indo-Guyanese workers, together with elements of both ethnic groups' middle sectors, made for a formidable constituency. Conservatives branded them as communist, but the party campaigned on a center-left platform and appealed to a growing nationalism. The conservatives, together with the poorly organized United Farmers and Workers Party and the United National Party, were however soundly defeated.\n\nThe first elected administration was brief. The legislature opened on May 30, 1953. Already suspicious of Jagan and his radicalism, conservative forces in the business community were further distressed by the new administration's program of expanding the role of the state in the economy and society. The reforms brought the party into confrontation with the governor and with high-ranking civil servants who preferred more gradual change. The introduction of the Labour Relations Act provoked a confrontation with the British. The opposition charged that Jagan was seeking to gain control over the colony's economic and social life and was moving to stifle the opposition. The day after the act was passed, on October 9, 1953, London suspended the colony's constitution and, under pretext of quelling disturbances, sent in troops.;;;X
GUI_DESC;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;In 1958 the French Fourth Republic collapsed due to political instability and its failures in dealing with its colonies, especially Indochina and Algeria. The founding of a Fifth Republic was supported by the French people, while France's colonies were given the choice between more autonomy in a new French Community and immediate independence. The other colonies chose the former but Guinea - under the leadership of Ahmed Sékou Touré - voted overwhelmingly for independence. The French withdrew quickly, and on October 2, 1958, Guinea proclaimed itself a sovereign and independent republic, with Sékou Touré as president.\n\nGuinea quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union and adopted socialist policies. This alliance was short lived, however, as Guinea moved towards a Chinese model of socialism. Despite this, however, the country continued to receive aid and investment from capitalist countries such as the U.S. Within a few years of independence, Touré led the nation into one-party rule. Advocating a hybrid African Socialism domestically and Pan-Africanism abroad, Touré quickly became a polarising leader, and his government became intolerant of dissent, imprisoning hundreds, and stifling free press. At the same time, the government nationalised land, removed French appointed and traditional chiefs from power, and broke ties with French government and companies;;;X
CYP_DESC;"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";"In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a British Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.\n\nIn 1960, the mostly Muslim Turkish Cypriots were only 18 percent of the Cypriot population. However, the 1960 constitution carried major imbalances in the favour of Turkish Cypriots regarding state affairs. Archbishop Makarios would be the President and Dr Fazil Kucuk would become Vice President. One of the articles in the constitution was the creation of separate local municipalities so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could manage their own municipalities in the big towns.\n\nInternal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted the United Nations to send peacekeeping forces in 1964; these forces are still in place today.";;;X
GLD_DESC;"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";"In 1950, with increasing popular backing, a campaign of 'Positive Action' was initiated, intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance. When some violent disorders occurred on 20 January 1950 Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for sedition. This merely established him as a leader and hero, building popular support, and when the first elections were held in 1951, Nkrumah and his party won. Nkrumah was released from jail on 11 February 1951, and the following day accepted an invitation to form a government as 'leader of government business,' a position similar to that of prime minister.\n\nThe new constitution of 5 May 1954 ended the election of assembly members by the tribal councils; the elected assembly was given control of virtually all internal affairs of the colony. On 11 May 1956 the British agreed to grant independence if so requested by a 'reasonable' majority of the new legislature and soon set 6 March 1957, as the date the former British colony of the Gold Coast was to become the independent state of Ghana. Nkrumah continued as prime minister, and Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, which would continue until 1960, when after a national referendum, Ghana was declared a republic.\n\nKwame Nkrumah has been described by author Peter Omari as a dictator who 'made much of elections, when he was aware that they were not really free but rigged in his favor.' The Deportation Act empowered the governor general and, therefore, subsequent heads of state, to expel persons whose presence in the country was deemed not in the interest of the public good. The Preventive Detention Act, passed in 1958, gave power to the prime minister to detain certain persons for up to five years without trial. Soon, Nkrumah was proclaimed president for life, and the CPP became the sole party of the state. Using the powers granted him by the party and the constitution, Nkrumah by 1961 had detained an estimated 400 to 2,000 of his opponents.";;;X
U70_DESC;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;The effects of Britain's postwar withdrawal from India, the march of nationalism in West Africa, and a more liberal philosophy in the Colonial Office geared toward future self-rule all began to be felt in Uganda. The embodiment of these issues arrived in 1952 in the person of a new and energetic reformist governor, Sir Andrew Cohen. On the economic side, he removed obstacles to African cotton ginning, rescinded price discrimination against African-grown coffee, encouraged cooperatives, and established the Uganda Development Corporation to promote and finance new projects. On the political side, he reorganized the Legislative Council, which had consisted of an unrepresentative selection of interest groups heavily favoring the European community, to include African representatives elected from districts throughout Uganda. This system became a prototype for the future parliament.\n\n At the London Conference of 1960, it was obvious that Buganda autonomy and a strong unitary government were incompatible, but no compromise emerged, and the decision on the form of government was postponed. The British announced that elections would be held in March 1961 for 'responsible government,' the next-to-last stage of preparation before the formal granting of independence. It was assumed that those winning the election would gain valuable experience in office, preparing them for the probable responsibility of governing after independence.\n\nUganda gained independence from Britain in 1962, maintaining its Commonwealth membership. The first post-independence election, held in 1962, was won by an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yekka (KY). UPC and KY formed the first post-independence government with Milton Obote as executive Prime Minister, the Buganda Kabaka (King) Edward Muteesa II holding the largely ceremonial position of President and William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazinga (paramount chief) of Busoga, as Vice President.;;;X
U75_DESC;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;Singapore's first general election in 1955 was won by the pro-independence David Marshall, leader of the Labour Front. Demanding complete self-rule he led a delegation to London but was turned down by the British. He resigned when he returned and was replaced by Lim Yew Hock, whose policies convinced Britain to grant Singapore full internal self-government for all matters except defence and foreign affairs.\n\nDuring the May 1959 elections, the People's Action Party won a landslide victory. Singapore had become an internally self-governing state within the Commonwealth, with Lee Kuan Yew as the first Prime Minister. Governor Sir William Allmond Codrington Goode served as the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara ('Head of State'). During the 1950s Communists, mostly supported by the Chinese-speaking group, with strong ties to the trade unions and Chinese schools, carried out an armed struggle against the state, resulting in the Malayan Emergency and later, the Communist Insurgency War.\n\nOn 31 August 1963, Singapore declared independence from Britain and joined with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new Federation of Malaysia as the result of the 1962 Merger Referendum.;;;X
U81_DESC;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;The name Upper Volta indicated that the country is situated on the upper reaches of the Volta River. The river's three tributaries are called the Black Volta, White Volta and Red Volta, and the colors of the national flag corresponded to these parts of the river system.\n\nOn 11 December 1958 the future country achieved self-government and became the Republic of Upper Volta and a member of the Franco-African Community. A revision in the organization of French Overseas Territories began with the passage of the Basic Law of 23 July 1956. This act was followed by reorganizational measures approved by the French parliament early in 1957 to ensure a large degree of self-government for individual territories. On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France. The first president, Maurice Yaméogo, was the leader of the Voltaic Democratic Union (UDV). The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV. The government lasted until 1966 when after much unrest—mass demonstrations and strikes by students, labor unions, and civil servants—the military intervened.;;;X
U82_DESC;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;On 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became an autonomous territory within the French Community and took the name Central African Republic. The founding father and president of the Conseil de Gouvernement, Barthélémy Boganda, died in a mysterious plane accident in 1959, just eight days before the last elections of the colonial era.\n\nOn 13 August 1960, the Central African Republic gained its independence and two of Boganda's closest aides, Abel Goumba and David Dacko, became involved in a power struggle. With the backing of the French, Dacko took power and soon had Goumba arrested. By 1962, President Dacko had established a one-party state.;;;X
U83_DESC;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;The Sinhalese leader Don Stephen Senanayake was one of the most prominent politicians pushing the issue of independence. He formed the United National Party (UNP) in 1946, when a new constitution was agreed on. At the elections of 1947 the UNP won a minority of the seats in parliament, but cobbled together a coalition with the Sinhala Maha Sabha party of Solomon Bandaranaike and the Tamil Congress of G.G. Ponnambalam.\n\nDominion status followed on 4 February 1948 with military treaties with Britain, as the upper ranks of the armed forces were initially British, and British air and sea bases remaining intact. This was later raised to independence itself and Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. Later, John Kotelawala was the first prime minister to bring to the fore the issue of national languages that D. S. Senanayake had adroitly kept on the back burner, antagonising the Tamils and the Sinhalese by stating conflicting policies with regard to the status of Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.\n\nIn 1956 the Senate was abolished and Sinhala was established as the official language, with Tamil as a second language. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished and plantations were nationalised to fulfil the election pledges of the Marxist program and to 'prevent the ongoing dis-investment by the owning companies'. In 1956 the Sinhala Only Act came into being. This established the Sinhalese language as the first and preferred language in commerce and education. In 1958 the first major riots between Sinhalese and Tamils flared up in Colombo which was a direct result of the government's language policy.;;;X
U84_DESC;"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";"After the war ended local parties started to develop in Chad. The first to be born was the radical Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) in February 1947, from 1959 headed by François Tombalbaye. The more conservative Chadian Democratic Union (UDT) was founded in November 1947 and represented French commercial interests and a bloc of traditional leaders composed primarily of Muslim and Ouaddaian nobility. The confrontation between the PPT and UDT was more than simply ideological; it represented different regional identities, with the PPT representing the Christian and animist south and the UDT the Islamic north.\n\nThe PPT won the May 1957 pre-independence elections thanks to a greatly expanded franchise. After a referendum on territorial autonomy on 28 September 1958, French Equatorial Africa was dissolved, and its four constituent states – Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), the Central African Republic, and Chad became autonomous members of the French Community. On 11 August 1960, Chad became an independent country and François Tombalbaye became its first President.\n\nOne of the most prominent aspects of Tombalbaye's rule to prove itself was his authoritarianism and distrust of democracy. Already in January 1962 he banned all political parties except his own PPT, and started immediately concentrating all power in his own hands. His treatment of opponents, real or imagined, was extremely harsh, filling the prisons with thousands of political prisoners.";;;X
U85_DESC;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;Congolese Governor General Felix Eboué had a carrot and stick approach to local Congolese grievances. While allowing certain freedoms he brutally repressed any activities deemed dangerous to French colonial control. The most prominent Congolese politician until 1956 was Jean-Félix Tchicaya and a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Loango. Together with Ivorian leader Félix Houphouet-Boigny and others, he formed the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA) in 1946 and, in 1947, the Parti Progressiste Africain. Although Tchicaya was on the left of the French political spectrum, he never strongly questioned French colonial rule. This resulted in a loss of influence as the Congo prepared for independence, influenced by nationalist anti-colonial leaders as Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser. Prior to independence, the French establishment and Catholic Church feared radicalism and favored the rise of Fulbert Youlou, a former priest who became Prime Minister in 1958. This led to the establishment of the Republic of Congo on 28 November 1958 (with Brazzaville replacing Point Noire as the country's capital).\n\nOn 16 February 1959, a revolt erupted in clashes along tribal lines between Southerners, supporting Youlou, and people from the North, loyal to the opposition. After the May 9 arrest of several politicians, including veteran politician Simon Kikhounga Ngot, because of an alleged communist plot, parliamentary elections were convincingly won by Youlou. On 15 August 1960, the Republic of Congo became an independent country and Fulbert Youlou became its first President.;;;X
U86_DESC;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;After the Second World War, the pace of constitutional reform in Gambia increased. Following general elections in 1962, full internal self-governance was granted in the following year. The Gambia achieved independence on February 18, 1965 as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the government held a referendum proposing that an elected president replace the Gambian monarch as head of state. The referendum failed to receive the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution, but the results won widespread attention abroad as testimony to the Gambia's observance of secret balloting, honest elections, and civil rights and liberties.;;;X
U88_DESC;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;Until 1958, governors appointed in Paris administered the colony of Ivory Coast, using a system of direct, centralized administration that left little room for Ivoirian participation in policy making. Whereas British colonial administration adopted divide-and-rule policies elsewhere, applying ideas of assimilation only to the educated elite, the French were interested in ensuring that the small but influential elite was sufficiently satisfied with the status quo to refrain from any anti-French sentiment.\n\nThe son of a Baoulé chief, Félix Houphouet-Boigny, was to become Ivory Coast's father of independence. In 1944 he formed the country's first agricultural trade union for African cocoa farmers like himself. Houphouet-Boigny soon rose to prominence and within a year was elected to the French Parliament in Paris. A year later the French abolished forced labour.\n\nA turning point in relations with France was reached with the 1956 Overseas Reform Act, which transferred a number of powers from Paris to elected territorial governments in French West Africa and also removed remaining voting inequalities. In 1958, Ivory Coast became an autonomous member of the French Community (which replaced the French Union). At the time of Ivory Coast's independence (1960), the country was easily French West Africa's most prosperous, contributing over 40 percent of the region's total exports. When Houphouet-Boigny became the first president, his government gave farmers good prices for their products to further stimulate production. This was further boosted by a significant immigration of workers from surrounding countries. Coffee production increased significantly, catapulting Ivory Coast into third place in world output (behind Brazil and Colombia). By 1979, the country was the world's leading producer of cocoa. It also became Africa's leading exporter of pineapples and palm oil.;;;X
U89_DESC;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;Jamaica gained a degree of local political control in the mid-1940s. The People's National Party (PNP) was founded in 1938. Its main rival, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was established five years later. The first elections under universal adult suffrage were held in 1944. Jamaica joined nine other UK territories in the Federation of the West Indies in 1958 but reconsidered. After a 1961 referendum in which voters chose independence, the nation withdrew from the federation.\n\nJamaica gained independence on August 6, 1962, remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The first prime minister was Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party.;;;X
U90_DESC;"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";"After the suppression of the Mau Mau rising, the British provided for the election of the six African members to the Legislative Council under a weighted franchise based on education. The new colonial constitution of 1958 increased African representation, but African nationalists began to demand a democratic franchise on the principle of 'one man, one vote.'\n\nIn 1962 a KANU-KADU coalition government, including both Kenyatta and Ngala, was formed. The 1962 constitution established a bicameral legislature consisting of a 117-member House of Representatives and a 41-member Senate. The quota principle of reserved seats for non-Africans was abandoned, and open elections were held in May 1963. Kenya now achieved internal self-government with Jomo Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Kenya attained independence on 12 Dec 1963 as a commonwealth realm with HM The Queen as Head of State. In 1964 Kenya became a republic, and constitutional changes further centralised the government.\n\nThe British government bought out the white settlers and they mostly left Kenya. The Indian minority dominated retail business in the cities and most towns, but was deeply distrusted by the Africans. As a result 120,000 of the 176,000 Indians kept their old British passports rather than become citizens of an independent Kenya; large numbers left Kenya, most of them headed to Britain.";;;X
U91_DESC;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;The discovery of oil in Kuwait, in 1938, revolutionized the sheikdom's economy and made it a valuable asset to Britain. In 1941 on the same day as the German invasion of Russia (22 June) the British took total control over Iraq and Kuwait.\n\nBy early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.\n\nWhen Kuwait became independent in 1961, Iraq claimed Kuwait, under the rationale that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty. Iraq appeared to be mobilizing for a military invasion and on 27 June 1961 the emir of Kuwait requested assistance from the Saudi Arabian and British Governments. Britain rapidly deployed troops, aircraft and ships to the area (Operation Vantage). In 1963, after Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim had been killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed its acceptance of Kuwaiti sovereignty. In the 1960s and 1970s however there were still periodic border clashes.;;;X
U92_DESC;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;After World War II, the islands achieved self-rule, with the Malta Labour Party (MLP) of Dom Mintoff seeking either full integration with the UK or else self-determination (independence), and the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) of George Borg Olivier favouring independence, with the same 'dominion status' that Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoyed. A UK integration referendum was held on 11 and 12 February 1956, in which 77.02 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposal, but owing to a boycott by the Nationalist Party, only 59.1 per cent of the electorate voted, thereby rendering the result inconclusive. There were also concerns expressed by British MPs that the representation of Malta at Westminster would set a precedent for other colonies, and influence the outcome of general elections. In addition, the decreasing strategic importance of Malta to the Royal Navy meant that the British government was increasingly reluctant to maintain the naval dockyards. Soon islands were placed under direct colonial administration from London, with the MLP abandoning support for integration and now advocating independence. In 1959, an Interim Constitution provided for an Executive Council under British rule.\n\nWhile France had implemented a similar policy in its colonies, some of which became overseas departments, the status offered to Malta from Britain constituted a unique exception. Malta was the only British colony where integration with the UK was seriously considered, and subsequent British governments have ruled out integration for remaining overseas territories, such as Gibraltar.\n\nIn 1961, the Blood Commission provided for a new constitution allowing for a measure of self-government and recognizing the 'State' of Malta.;;;X
U93_DESC;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;After World War II, Mauritania, along with the rest of French West Africa, was involved in a series of reforms of the French colonial system, culminating in independence in 1960. These reforms were part of a trend away from the official policies of assimilation and direct rule in favor of administrative decentralization and internal autonomy. Although the nationalistic fervor sweeping French West Africa at this time was largely absent in Mauritania, continuous politicking (averaging one election every eighteen months between 1946 and 1958) provided training for political leaders and awakened a political consciousness among the populace. On 28 July 1960 France agreed to Mauritania becoming fully independent. Nevertheless, when Mauritania declared its independence on 28 November 1960, its level of political as well as economic development was, at best, embryonic.\n\nThe capital city Nouakchott was founded at the site of a small colonial village, the Ksar, while 90 percent of the population was still nomadic. With independence, larger numbers of ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans (Haalpulaar, Soninke, and Wolof) entered Mauritania, moving into the area north of the Senegal River. As before independence, the sedentary lifestyle of these groups made them more receptive to and useful in state formation, and they quickly came to dominate state administration, even if the Moorish groups built up by the French remained in charge of the political process. Moors reacted to this change by increasing pressures for Arabization, to Arabicize many aspects of Mauritanian life, such as law and language, and ethnic tension built up - helped by a common memory of warfare and slave raids.\n\nPresident Moktar Ould Daddah, originally helped to the post by the French, rapidly reformed Mauritania into an authoritarian one-party state in 1964, with his new constitution.;;;X
U94_DESC;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;After the establishment of the Fifth French Republic on 4 October 1958, the territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given the right to hold a referendum on their membership in the French Community, a modified form of the French Union which allowed some limited self-government and was viewed as a path to eventual independence. On the 18th Niger declared itself a republic within the French Community and the Territorial Assembly became the Constituent Assembly.In March 1959 this became the Legislative Assembly.\n\nIn 1958 Diori became president of the provisional government, and then became Prime Minister of Niger in 1959. Having organised a powerful coalition of Hausa, Fula, and Djerma leaders, especially made up of chiefs and traditional leaders, in support of Niger's 'Yes' vote in the 1959 referendum, Diori gained French favor. During the 1959-1960 period, the French government banned all political parties except the PPN, effectively making Niger a one-party state.\n\nIndependence was declared on 3 August 1960 under the leadership of Prime Minister Diori. Subsequently in November 1960 Diori was elected to the new position of President of Niger by the National Assembly. During his presidency, Diori's government favored the maintenance of traditional social structures and the retention of close economic ties with France. Diori gained worldwide respect for his role as a spokesman for African affairs and as a popular arbitrator in conflicts involving other African nations. Domestically, however, his administration was rife with corruption, and the government was unable to implement much-needed reforms.;;;X
U95_DESC;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;In the 1950s and early 1960s, a wave of Pan-Africanism swept through Central Africa, expressed by leaders such as Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and a socialist platform of African unity and equality for all Africans was promoted. Encouraged by the Pan-Africanists, Hutu advocates in the Catholic Church, and by Christian Belgians, Hutu resentment of the Tutsi increased. The United Nations mandates, the Tutsi elite class, and the Belgian colonialists added to the growing unrest. Grégoire Kayibanda led the Hutu 'emancipation' movement. In November 1959, Tutsis tried to assassinate Kayibanda. Rumors of the death of Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa at the hands of Tutsis, who had beaten him, set off a violent retaliation, called the wind of destruction. Hutus killed an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi.\n\nIn 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Rwanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries. A Belgian effort to create an independent Rwanda-Urundi with Tutsi-Hutu power sharing failed, largely due to escalating violence. At the urging of the UN, the Belgian government divided Rwanda-Urundi into two separate countries, Rwanda and Burundi. On 25 September 1961, a referendum was held to establish whether Rwanda should become a republic or remain a kingdom. Citizens voted overwhelmingly for a republic. After parliamentary elections held on the same day, the first Rwandese Republic was declared, with Kayibanda as prime minister. Mbonyumutwa was named the first president of the transitional government. Peaceful negotiation of international problems, social and economic elevation of the masses, and integrated development of Rwanda were the ideals of the Kayibanda regime. Despite the progress made, inefficiency and corruption developed in government ministries in the mid-1960s.;;;X
U96_DESC;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;Following the 1945 elections to the Constituent Assembly in France, which were held with a very limited franchise, the French authorities gradually extended the franchise until in November 1955 the principle of universal suffrage was passed into law and implemented the following year. The first electoral contest held under universal suffreage were the municipal elections of November 1956, the first national contest the 1957 election of the Territorial Assembly.\n\nIn January 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan merged to form the Mali Federation, which became fully independent on 20 June 1960, as a result of the independence and the transfer of power agreement signed with France on 4 April 1960. Due to internal political difficulties, the Federation broke up on 20 August 1960. Senegal and Soudan (renamed the Republic of Mali) proclaimed independence. Léopold Senghor, internationally known poet, politician, and statesman, was elected Senegal's first president in August 1960.;;;X
U97_DESC;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;After World War II, Tanganyika became a United Nations trust territory under British control. Subsequent years witnessed Tanganyika moving gradually toward self-government and independence. In 1954, Julius Nyerere, the future leader of Tanzania, who was then a school teacher and one of only two Tanganyikans educated abroad at the university level, organized a political party—the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).\n\nOn December 9, 1961, Tanganika became an autonomous Commonwealth realm, and Nyerere became Prime Minister, under a new constitution. On December 9, 1962, a republican constitution was implemented with Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere as Tanganyika's first president.\n\nZanzibar received its independence from the United Kingdom on December 10, 1963, as a constitutional monarchy under the Sultan. On January 12, 1964, the African majority revolted against the sultan and a new government was formed with the ASP leader, Abeid Karume, as President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. With the revolts quelled by the British troops, on April 26, 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The country was renamed the United Republic of Tanzania on October 29 of that year.;;;X
U98_DESC;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;The 1956 General Elections saw the emergence of the People's National Movement under the leadership of Eric Williams. The PNM, opposed by Dr. Rudranath Capildeo of the Democratic Labor Party and Ashford Sinanan, who later founded the West Indian National Party (WINP), continued to dominate politics in Trinidad and Tobago until 1986. Williams became Prime Minister at independence, and remained in that position until his death in 1981.\n\nIn 1958, the United Kingdom tried to establish an independent West Indies Federation comprising most of the former British West Indies. However, disagreement over the structure of the federation led to Jamaica's withdrawal. Eric Williams responded to this with his now famous calculation 'One from ten leaves nought.' Trinidad and Tobago chose not bear the financial burden without Jamaica's assistance, and the Federation collapsed. Trinidad and Tobago achieved full independence in August 1962 within the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its titular head of state.;;;X
U99_DESC;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;By statute in 1955, French Togoland became an autonomous republic within the French Union. Soon, considerable power over internal affairs was granted, with an elected executive body headed by a prime minister responsible to the legislature. These changes were embodied in a constitution approved in a 1956 referendum. On 10 September 1956, Nicolas Grunitzky became prime minister of the Republic of Togo.\n\nOn 27 April 1960, in a smooth transition, Togo severed its constitutional ties with France, shed its UN trusteeship status, and became fully independent under a provisional constitution with Sylvanus Olympio as president.\n\nA new constitution in 1961 established an executive president, elected for 7 years by universal suffrage and a weak National Assembly. The president was empowered to appoint ministers and dissolve the assembly, holding a monopoly of executive power. In elections that year, from which Grunitzky's party was disqualified, Olympio's party won 90 percent of the vote and all 51 National Assembly seats, and he became Togo's first elected president. Olympio dissolved the opposition parties in January 1962 because of alleged plots against the majority party government. The reign of Olympio was marked by the terror of his militia, the Ablode Sodjas. Many opposition members, including Grunitzky, were jailed or fled to avoid arrest.\n\nOn January 13, 1963, President Olympio was overthrown and killed in a coup d'état led by army non-commissioned officers dissatisfied with conditions following their discharge from the French army. Grunitzky returned from exile 2 days later to head a provisional government with the title of prime minister. On May 5, 1963, the Togolese adopted a new constitution which reinstated a multi-party system, chose deputies from all political parties for the National Assembly, and elected Grunitzky as president.;;;X
#EOF;;;;;;;;;;;X
#EOF;;;;;;;;;;;X